Page 1503 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 14 May 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
conversations happening so that we get the best possible outcome. Whether it is at the conceptual level or the quite detailed technical level, it is certainly a culture that I am seeking to instil in my agencies—that is, to have a very open dialogue with the community. I believe a lot of knowledge can be derived, especially a lot of local knowledge when it comes to planning issues, that can be very useful in getting the best possible outcome for the community.
The reason I have touched on this point in particular is that it is the one part of Mr Coe’s text that I broadly agree with—that is, to ensure that relevant stakeholders are consulted on the planning system. I completely agree with that, and I certainly think it is an important component.
With respect to some of the other issues around the points that Mr Coe has raised, I think this is the third sitting week in a row in which we have seen one of these grab bag motions where he thinks of all the things he can complain about and rolls them all into one, without having any substantive analysis of the particular points that are there.
I want to reflect on the project facilitation bill, because I think Mr Coe’s false characterisation of the legislation, and continued false characterisation of the legislation, does him little credit. To suggest that it actually gave Mr Corbell all the planning powers really defies exactly what the legislation did. I have been very clear in this place and with the public about the basis for saying I felt this legislation was an improvement on the current situation.
The first point that Mr Coe made was that it gave Mr Corbell a lone hand. That is simply not the case. I can only assume Mr Coe knows that because I know he has spent time thinking about the legislation. He must have, having been on the committee. It is quite clear that yes, it did give the minister power to initiate certain things but it also gave the Assembly the power to stop those things if it saw fit. It provided a statutory public consultation time frame. It provided a whole series of steps and, ultimately, it provided this place with the ability to override the minister if it saw fit.
Mr Coe conveniently forgets that and leaves it out of the story to suit his political narrative when he talks about it in this place, and when he is out there talking to constituents I do not imagine he is saying to them that, ultimately, he could have had a vote on it. He wants to distort it to something that suits his own political narrative—or perhaps it is because he has discomfort with having to take responsibility when this matter ultimately comes to the Assembly. I am not sure what it is, but the fact that he keeps conveniently leaving that out of his narrative does a great disservice and discredits his own argument.
There was some reference to the fact that community groups felt that the way in which I had characterised the legislation created a false impression around the call-in powers. I took that on board when that came up in the course of the committee hearings—because I was listening to the committee hearings—and following the submissions that came in. I do not believe that is what I said, and I have gone back and checked the text, but that is what people have told me they took from it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video