Page 737 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 8 April 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Bill agreed to in principle.
Detail stage
Clause 1.
Debate (on motion by Mr Rattenbury) adjourned to the next sitting.
Planning, Environment and Territory and Municipal Services—Standing Committee
Reference
Motion (by Mr Rattenbury) proposed:
That the Planning and Development (Project Facilitation) Amendment Bill 2014 be referred to the Standing Committee on Planning, Environment and Territory and Municipal Services for inquiry and report by 6 May 2014.
MR COE (Ginninderra) (11.24): It is a sham to expect that this bill could be referred to the planning committee today—8 April—and have it report back by 6 May having advertised, sought submissions, received submissions, held public hearings, written a draft report, discussed the draft report, agreed to the draft report and have it presented. This is a political tactic by Mr Rattenbury to get out of the very sticky situation he is in because he came out and said he supported the bill. We will not support this because it is obviously not a genuine attempt to get community feedback on this issue.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Minister for Workplace Safety and Industrial Relations and Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development) (11.25): The government will support this referral. It is important that there is an opportunity for people to make comment on this bill, and we accept the issues raised by Mr Rattenbury in his proposal for this referral. As Mr Rattenbury has said, the initial commentary on this bill was very muted, but in recent days other commentary has come forward where people are expressing clearer concerns. It is reasonable that a process is established to allow those concerns to be further articulated.
I am most concerned by the position being adopted already at this early stage by the opposition—that is, a clear and demonstrated indication that they do not intend to engage constructively in this process and that they do not intend to facilitate an effective committee inquiry. Mr Coe is a member of this committee, if I recall correctly. Even without seeing a submission, even without having looked at our terms of reference and even without an initial meeting of the committee, Mr Coe is not interested in participating. That is not the expectation members of the community would have of Mr Coe and his colleagues. If this committee inquiry is established, it is his obligation and his responsibility to engage in that process constructively. Regrettably, what we are seeing from his initial comments is a complete reluctance to do so.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video