Page 1505 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 14 May 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
the project facilitation bill, because as we heard from every single witness and as we read in every single submission, there are serious problems with this bill.
Yet Mr Rattenbury blindly supports this government. This was a golden opportunity for him to differentiate himself from the Labor Party. It was a golden opportunity for him to say, “Do you know what? I’ve got a bit of integrity. I am independent. I am impartial. I am going to step back from this one.” Instead, not only did he give them a blank cheque on this bill, but he continues to back them on this bill.
It took Ms Le Couteur to write a submission to the planning committee and say:
The new Bill will clearly make planning more political as the planning for possible large, and certainly important, areas of the territory can be basically determined politically. If the government has a majority in the Assembly then using the ‘major project’ or ‘special precinct’ powers will mean that it can operate the planning system without significant public consultation, if is so chooses.
It is interesting that Mr Rattenbury accused me of peddling these myths, but I wonder if he goes to the Greens meetings and says, “I’ll tell you what, Caroline, you’re peddling some myths about this project facilitation bill.” I wonder whether he does the same when he goes to all the community councils. I wonder whether he tells them, “You know what? You keep peddling myths about this project facilitation bill.” I wonder whether he has written a letter to the Walter Burley Griffin Society and to Mr Odgers, who said:
In the society’s view, the major problem of the draft Planning and Development (Project Facilitation) Amendment Bill 2014 is the specious claims about transparency and accountability, when in reality they threaten a marked decline in democratic processes with inevitable consequential poor outcomes in terms of environmental heritage, design and social outcomes.
I wonder whether Mr Rattenbury has written to the Walter Burley Griffin Society about those comments, which I presume Mr Rattenbury thinks are outrageous. I wonder whether Mr Rattenbury has picked up the phone and given Dr Stewart from the Woden Valley Community Council a call. Dr Stewart said:
The second point is that the bill gives the executive—not the parliament; the executive, that is, the planning minister and the cabinet—excessive and unaccountable powers over development associated with projects of significance or special precincts. Even the role of the Assembly is watered down because all the Assembly can do is vote to disallow the instruments that give effect to the proposed fast-track legislation.
It is fascinating. Even if Mr Rattenbury does in fact support this kooky bill, even if Mr Rattenbury does in fact think that Simon Corbell is doing a good job in the planning system, even if he thinks that the community does like what the government has proposed, you would think politically he would say, “Do you know what? On this one I’m better off just giving a little leeway with regard to the Labor-Greens alliance.” But, no, they are in lockstep.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video