Page 3188 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 19 August 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR SPEAKER: Order! Mrs Dunne has a point of order.
Mrs Dunne: There are rules in this place about how members refer to others and “Jacqui B” is not one of them.
MR SPEAKER: Thank you, Mrs Dunne. Mr Barr, come back to the subject matter of the discussion.
MR BARR: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This process has involved detailed consideration and I think Mrs Burke has misunderstood the nature of the territory plan variation—
Mrs Burke: Oh, I see.
MR BARR: whereby on a map of the territory you provide a concept, you provide, if you like, great blobs of rezoning rather than going down to the level of detail that you would in a state development plan.
Mrs Burke: How convenient.
MR SPEAKER: Mrs Burke, I have called you to order twice. Ignore me at your peril. I warn you.
MR BARR: So for Mrs Burke to suggest that a process around a territory plan variation should in the future, presumably under her alternative planning policy, involve a level of detail at an estate and street-by-street level, is to completely alter the way territory plan variations would occur.
I understand, Mr Speaker, that when it came to the detail around north Weston the community required a further level to take it down another layer before they would be supportive of the changes that were proposed. That level of information and extra detail was provided. But to suggest that through the initial phases of this process all territory plan variations will require a level of detail down to an individual street is to fundamentally alter the way that territory plan variations occur, particularly plans of this nature when we are talking about an entire new residential development area.
I say again that I find this accusation from Mrs Burke that there was no consultation, that the government was dragged kicking and screaming, or that the NCA had any particular role outside of its responsibilities around the national capital plan to be ill informed and typical of someone who has not followed the process, who has had no real involvement at all—someone who is providing some grandstanding comments at the end. Fundamentally, it is interesting to note that both Mrs Dunne and Dr Foskey are agreeing with the recommendations of the committee. In the end, all this has been about this morning has been a little bit of point scoring.
We are 59 days from an election and, okay, fair enough, Mr Speaker, you are going to have to expect that sort of behaviour. But for Mrs Burke to come in with her contribution shows what an ignorant contributor she is to public debate in this territory.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .