Page 1240 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 3 April 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR RATTENBURY (Kurrajong) (10.20): I move:
That the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the day after the tabling of the report of the Standing Committee on Planning and Urban Services’ inquiry into engagement with development application processes in the ACT.
MR WALL (Brindabella) (10.20): This is a bizarre situation. We have, obviously, an inquiry underway by a committee. The advice from the Clerk that has been given, as Ms Le Couteur has mentioned—and I would be keen for her to table that advice at her earliest convenience, if possible—is that it is not inconsistent with the standing orders to debate this motion. It is fair for the Assembly to deal with the issues that Mr Parton has raised in his motion, despite the ongoing inquiry by the planning committee.
It is worth noting—and for members actually to pay some attention—that the inquiry by the planning committee was self-referred, with a committee reporting date by the last sitting day in November 2018. That date has since passed. It is unreasonable to expect that a member, in their function in this place and their function in representing the ACT community, would be hamstrung in debating any issue which a committee seeks to inquire into.
By an absolute corruption of process, you could see the government, who control the numbers in this place, simply referring any matter of controversy to a committee and nobbling those committees to prevent any discussion of those topics inside the Assembly. That is not the appropriate process. If members are not free to raise issues in the Assembly then we are not free to carry out the functions as per the expectations of us in the community and of the legislative requirements under our role.
Mr Parton has been more than reasonable. It is not as though the issue of delayed processing times on DAs has popped up overnight or is an issue that has been canvassed inside the inquiry. Yes, it has been inquired into inside the inquiry, but DA processing times have been well beyond the regulated time frames of 20 days for a code application, and 30 days for merit and impact, since the implementation of this planning system back in 2008.
In large part it was the absolute cock-up by those opposite when they implemented these policies back in 2008 that got me involved in politics. I have seen people go broke because of the planning system.
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Wall, can you withdraw that language? There was a 10-second delay; forgive me. Can you withdraw it?
MR WALL: I withdraw.
MADAM SPEAKER: Thank you.
MR WALL: What am I withdrawing?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video