Page 1244 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 3 April 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I am the shadow minister for planning. The planning portfolio revolves around DAs. As the planning shadow minister, if I am not allowed to comment publicly on any matter related to or linked in any way to DAs, including in this chamber, it pretty much means that I have to park the portfolio for a year. I have to park it and just ignore things. I think it is ludicrous.
This motion has been brought to this chamber because of a cacophony of voices even louder than Ms Cheyne’s—a cacophony of voices in the community from people who have emailed me, who have called me, who have bailed me up in shopping centres, who have literally come and banged on my door because the system is not working.
It is no surprise that Labor has sided with Ms Le Couteur and will vote for a delay in our debating this motion. It is running for cover. We have those on the other side understanding that the system is broken but choosing to run and hide rather than face the music. Ms Le Couteur tells me time and again that she wants these problems fixed, but as soon as we have the opportunity to put pressure on the government to force them to address it, Ms Le Couteur tries to find a way to stop us from even debating it.
I ask Ms Le Couteur: who are you actually trying to protect here? Is this really about process? Are you trying to protect the families who are desperately trying to build just a shed in their backyard? Are you trying to protect the one and two-person building companies that are flying desperately close to the wind but that are forced to stand down for weeks at a time without any money coming in because of delays to simple DA applications?
I ask: are you trying to protect those in the community who ultimately will wear the higher costs for construction that have been brought about by this mess? Or I ask the Greens’ member instead: are you actually trying to protect the government that you always try to protect? You talk the talk of the crossbench out in the community. You say that you try to hold the government to account, but when push comes to shove and when we get in here, you are all comrades, aren’t you? You are all comrades.
Certainly in her speech Ms Le Couteur told us that she sought advice from the Clerk on this matter and he advised that it was fine for the motion to proceed. Still Ms Le Couteur insisted that we could not debate it. It is our job to represent the people and the community. The people and the community are crying out for action over unacceptable delays in development applications. Let us do our job and represent this view by debating this motion.
MR RATTENBURY (Kurrajong) (10.35), in reply: I think this has become a rather unfortunate discussion. What we are seeing here is a typical effort from the Liberal Party. When the rules do not suit them, they simply discard them. It is a long-term practice of this place that when there is a committee taking place we do not come in here and debate the substance of what has been put before the committee.
That does not suit us at times either. Over the years that I have been in this place—Ms Le Couteur has been in the same boat—there have been matters we would have liked to bring forward motions on. But we have recognised the practices of this place,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video