Page 1391 - Week 04 - Thursday, 26 March 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR BARR (Molonglo—Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Children and Young People, Minister for Planning and Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation) (10.53), in reply: I make the unusual statement that I thank members for their opposition to my motion today. I too will be voting against it. A number of interesting points have been raised by members in their contributions this morning and I will respond to each of those.
Firstly, if we were to set a new test in this place that business must not be theatrical, probably three-quarters of business in this place would fail that test. There are times when I think it is important that parties put their vote on the record and today provides such an opportunity. It will provide a degree of certainty that, whilst it is still possible for someone to move a motion for disallowance for a few more sitting days—I think the final opportunity is on the first day of budget week—nonetheless it would be a remarkable about-face having had a vote recorded today. So that will provide some measure of further certainty for stakeholders in relation to these matters.
If the criticism is that this motion for disallowance is theatrical, again, I would draw members’ attention to the majority of motions that are moved on private members’ day, the nature of questions in question time and the subject of matters of public importance. All of them contain an element of theatrics. That is the nature of parliamentary debate. It would be a very boring place if there were no theatrics and if that were the nature of parliamentary debate.
Mr Seselja raised a number of issues in his contribution. Some went to fundamental philosophical issues. I am very happy to respond to him, as I have put it on the record in this place on a number of occasions. Broadly speaking, on these matters the Labor Party positions itself to the left of the Liberals and to the right of the Greens. We occupy the political centre when it comes to planning matters. In fact, in most debates we find that the Liberal Party is positioned to the right of us and the Greens to the left of us. Since I have been a member of this place that has broadly been the position on planning matters. If you were to peel another layer off that, the Liberal Party appears to be more captured by the development lobby and more pro-development than the Labor Party. The Greens adopt a more anti-development position than does either Labor or Liberal.
There are different variations on that and, depending on the nature of the planning debate before the Assembly, there are nuances to each of those positions. But if you were to make a broad, general statement about philosophy in approaching matters in the planning and development area, that would be how it sits. I imagine if you were to ask the average Canberran where they see each of the parties positioned on those matters that would be their response as well. I must say I am very comfortable with that position. It is a very happy time for the Labor Party in public policy debate when you have the Liberals out on the far right and the Greens out on the far left. It does not always happen, but for those of us who occupy the sensible middle ground in territory and Australian politics, long may that continue.
Mr Seselja made a number of observations on the provisions of the planning and development regulations that are before us today and the application of these
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .