Page 1504 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 14 May 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
What I actually said was that I thought this provided an alternative pathway to call-ins—that it provided an opportunity to see less use of call-in powers and provided a pathway along the lines that I have just talked about. I felt that was a more transparent and democratic pathway. Members may disagree with that, but that was the perspective I took on the legislation and that was why I thought it was an improvement on some of the options that were available.
However, in light of that feedback, I have taken the opportunity to write to the community members I had written to on a previous occasion. I will quote from the email I sent them, although Mr Coe probably has it as well:
I would like to take the opportunity to clarify a point that has arisen from my previous communication about the project facilitation amendment bill. In particular, I have had feedback that some people have found my comments about call-in powers confusing. My clear intention was to communicate that the project facilitation bill provided an alternative pathway to call-ins. Some people took this to mean the full removal of call-ins, which is not what the legislation proposed.
For those that misunderstood my earlier communication, I have hopefully now made it very clear to them. I think any further suggestion about some deliberate attempt on my part to give people a different impression is unjustified.
In terms of the rest of the motion today, as I said, I will not be supporting Mr Coe’s text. With respect to the various assertions in the motion, such as the “lack of detail and awareness about the development of light rail”, that is just silly. On reflection, that is actually the word that Mr Corbell used, but it is the word that springs to mind. There is an enormous level of discussion going on. There is a significant amount of public information already available. As we have discussed repeatedly in this place, more information will become available. It is a large project. There is a lot of work to be done. I think the community will get access to extensive amounts of information. They already have it and they will get more of it. It is an odd reference, in the context of a discussion about DV306 and the planning system, to throw in. But there is never a bad moment to criticise light rail if you are Mr Coe.
We have had several discussions about talking this town down. Yet if we reflect on the need for infrastructure in this city and the economic stimulus that something like light rail will actually provide for this town, it is quite extraordinary the way in which the Canberra Liberals have decided to take a blanket opposition to it rather than look at the economic opportunities which other cities across the world have derived from these sorts of developments and which will undoubtedly flow in this city. Having made those few remarks, I will not be supporting this motion today.
MR COE (Ginninderra) (5.00), in reply: The more times that Mr Rattenbury goes in to bat for this government, for Mr Corbell and for the ACT planning system, the better it is for the ACT opposition. I just hope Mr Rattenbury keeps nailing his mast to Simon Corbell. That is what we on this side of the chamber want. We want Mr Rattenbury and Mr Corbell to be in lockstep when it comes to the ACT planning system. And we want Mr Rattenbury and Mr Corbell to be in lockstep with regard to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video