Ms MARTIN - 1997-12-03
My question goes to the issue of the minister’s willingness to be careless with the truth. On 12 June, he made a commitment to nearly 300 angry Parap residents that he would negotiate with the developer of an inappropriate block of units in their neighbourhood. He said he would ‘get a better deal’ for them. He told them adamantly that his comments were not part of a pre-election stunt. He wrote to them to reaffirm his commitment. He did nothing. In fact, 9 days after the election, he wrote to the Planning Authority withdrawing his stay on that development. Will the minister explain to this House why he did not tell the people of Parap the truth or were the commitments made at that meeting as hollow as his excuses for buying gay videos?
ANSWER
I am no longer Minister for Lands, Planning and Environment, Madam Speaker, but the matters that the honourable member raises are on the public record. I have provided information to this House on a number of occasions. That demonstrates publicly that, in relation to the particular development to which the member refers, I gave some instructions to the Planning Authority concerning its deliberations in May or thereabouts. Subsequently, I met with a representative of the developer. Subsequent to that, I believe the Planning Authority reconsidered the matter. That was a process followed under the terms of the Planning Act and one on which I have no reason to answer to the member for Fannie Bay.
Page 62
ANSWER
I am no longer Minister for Lands, Planning and Environment, Madam Speaker, but the matters that the honourable member raises are on the public record. I have provided information to this House on a number of occasions. That demonstrates publicly that, in relation to the particular development to which the member refers, I gave some instructions to the Planning Authority concerning its deliberations in May or thereabouts. Subsequently, I met with a representative of the developer. Subsequent to that, I believe the Planning Authority reconsidered the matter. That was a process followed under the terms of the Planning Act and one on which I have no reason to answer to the member for Fannie Bay.
Page 62
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016