Page 1241 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 3 April 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MADAM SPEAKER: I was a bit shocked: did I hear that?
MR WALL: Which bit do you want withdrawn? I think it would help to be clear.
MADAM SPEAKER: I think you know.
MR WALL: Madam Speaker, they have absolutely stuffed up the implementation of this planning.
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Wall, can you—
MR WALL: You can take that back and rule on that later, if you want to, because that is going to be unsafe.
MADAM SPEAKER: No, I will do it now. Just do not be offensive in here.
MR WALL: Madam Speaker, people’s livelihoods have been lost; people’s businesses have gone broke.
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Wall, can you sit down? There are some who would say “stuffed up” could be seen as being unparliamentary.
Mr Coe: I am not sure they are in this chamber, though.
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Coe, I do not need it. It is probably not on the list, Mr Wall. I am happy to take advice. Can you just be careful with your language from here on in?
MR WALL: Madam Speaker, this is not a new issue. This is an issue that has been plaguing ACTPLA, the planning system and those that administer it, overseen by the minister for planning, since 2008. For 11 years this issue has been in place, and it is only getting worse.
Members opposite, the government and the Greens, are in cahoots in trying to nobble debate and stymie the opposition from discussing issues that are having broad implications across the ACT—not just for a builder but for the mums and dads that want to build a deck, a pergola or a garage, or extend and put an extra bedroom on.
With respect to the implications of delayed processing times in development applications, the minister for planning says those are exempt. Build it within 900 metres of a boundary, minister, which is where a garage or a carport often is, and it is now a code, if not a merit, issue depending on what is on the other side of the fence. It is great to see you have a broad understanding of the policies which you administer. It is no wonder that the process is so broken.
The implications of this are broad. Those members opposite should at least allow themselves to be subject to the scrutiny that they deserve, by allowing the debate on this motion to occur. The opposition will not be supporting the motion proposed by
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video