Page 5473 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 16 November 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR BARR: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will need to indicate, as is the final point in my amendment, that the second round will follow the same application and assessment process as the first round and that of previous years. So there will be the availability of a pre-application meeting.
Mr Doszpot: Yes, because you stuffed up on the first one.
MR BARR: Who stuffed up?
Mr Doszpot: You did.
MR BARR: I had no role in the assessment or the application process at all. Were you not listening, Mr Doszpot? Are you suggesting I should?
Mr Doszpot: No, I did not say you personally stuffed up, but the effect that—
MR SPEAKER: Members, we do not need conversation. Come on.
MR BARR: Mr Doszpot interjects across the chamber that there has been a stuff-up. When I challenge him on it, he asserts no, it was not mine, because he accepts that the minister of the day should not be making these decisions. I am not personally assessing the applications, and you agree with that.
Mr Doszpot: I do agree with that.
MR BARR: Excellent. So you are now casting an aspersion on the independent committee. They have stuffed up, have they? If you are going to make these assertions, Mr Doszpot, you need to back them up. You need to back them up, because it is the integrity of these individuals you are—
Mr Hanson: Mr Speaker, under standing order 42, I would ask that you get Mr Barr to address his comments through you, rather than having this ongoing debate with Mr Doszpot.
MR SPEAKER: Thank you. Mr Barr, let us return to the matter at hand.
MR BARR: Indeed. If members wish to make these assertions then it is appropriate that they do so a little more directly rather than by the snide innuendo that we have been getting through the contributions by way of interjection and in Mr Hanson’s speech. But in challenging this, it would appear that no, it is not an attack on the integrity of those individuals who are independently assessing these applications. But I go back to that point, the final point I was making in relation to the final point in my amendment, that there will be the same process, that there will be the availability of a pre-application meeting.
In the instance of the Weston Creek submission, they will have the opportunity for a debrief on why their initial application was not successful and will then also have the opportunity for a pre-application meeting before they put in a subsequent application
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video