Mr REED - 1996-02-28
Mr REED (Lands, Planning and Environment): Mr Speaker, I take this opportunity to provide an answer to matters raised by the member for Fannie Bay in the adjournment debate last night pertaining to a planning issue, in particular to a development proposal submitted by a developer to subdivide and establish some 108 blocks of land on Brandt Road.
Ms Martin: The subdivision is yours.
Mr REED: Mr Speaker, it is of particular concern to me that the member for Fannie Bay misrepresented the position, both last night and in news broadcasts on ABC radio this morning. For her to suggest that it was the Planning Authority itself that was at fault - for example, in not considering the matter last week, on 22 February, as was intended ...
Ms Martin: There was no explanation.
Mr REED: Mr Speaker, one of the problems with the member for Fannie Bay is that she does not listen when she is being provided with information. If she had listened over the last couple of months, she would be aware of what has actually transpired and what the legislative requirements are. The Planning Authority received a letter from the proponent of this development the day before it was to have met to consider, among other matters, this matter.
Mr Bailey: You mean your department sent it a letter a day before it was due to be heard.
Mr REED: I will not be interrupted, Mr Speaker.
The letter indicated a deferral of the applications that had been made. After receiving such a request, the Planning Authority had no alternative but to defer consideration. It is incorrect for the member for Fannie Bay to accuse the Planning Authority of inappropriate action in this regard. The deferral could well have occurred 5 minutes before the meeting. As it happened, it occurred the day before. I sympathise with those people who were inconvenienced by the deferral. The fact is that the authority has an ability to do that and that exists for obvious reasons.
On the radio this morning, the member for Fannie Bay said that the government - I believe she referred to me in particular - tried to sneak this through.
Ms Martin: 22 December. That ...
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Page 1244
Mr REED: Mr Speaker, I have a few comments to make in relation to that. First, while I recognise that people do go on leave over Christmas and they may not have the ability to pick up issues, the world really cannot stop because of Christmas.
It is no good your sneering at me or trying to ...
Ms Martin: I can't believe it.
Mr REED: Just listen to the facts.
If people consider that they have been disadvantaged because they were unaware of the notifications or unable to make their submissions, there is always the option to extend the period for which the application is on public display. In a much more responsible and considered approach, the member for Leanyer, the local member for the area concerned, expressed to me the views and wishes of the residents in the area who were seeking an extension of the public notification period. The member for Leanyer met with representatives from the area to hear their concerns. The member for Leanyer made public statements about this matter, but he did so in a correct and well-managed way.
Mr Bailey: Provided he is on your side, you mean? This pompous arrogance is overwhelming.
Ms Martin: I said: `Please consider the facts. People are ...
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr REED: He did not suggest that we were trying to sneak it through or that anything underhand was happening. He is aware ...
Mr Ede: He is your mate - what do you think!
Mr REED: No, he is not my mate. It is not because of that. It is a matter ...
Mr Ede: `He is not my mate'!
Mr REED: It is a matter of competence and your incompetence. The member for Fannie Bay's incompetence is best illustrated by the fact that she knows that there are legislative requirements that must be pursued in relation to the advertising of matters of this kind. I would like her to explain how she can suggest that there was an attempt to sneak this through when there were no less than 5 advertisements in the media. There were ads of about quarter-page size in the NT News on no fewer than 3 occasions. In the Litchfield Times, on no fewer than 2 occasions, there were half-page ads. That is hardly a measure that one would take if one was attempting to sneak something through.
There are 2 things that the member for Fannie Bay has to pursue as the shadow spokesman for lands, planning and environment. First, she has to be honest with the people of the Northern Territory and not try to suggest that things are being snuck through or that the processes are being short-circuited or that the processes have not been followed. The
Page 1245
processes were followed to the letter. The other thing that she has to do is to become familiar with exactly what the requirements are. She should have a look at what the legislation says. She would do well to follow the lead set by the member for Leanyer who is able to take up these issues on behalf of his constituents in a much more responsible way.
Page 1247
Ms Martin: The subdivision is yours.
Mr REED: Mr Speaker, it is of particular concern to me that the member for Fannie Bay misrepresented the position, both last night and in news broadcasts on ABC radio this morning. For her to suggest that it was the Planning Authority itself that was at fault - for example, in not considering the matter last week, on 22 February, as was intended ...
Ms Martin: There was no explanation.
Mr REED: Mr Speaker, one of the problems with the member for Fannie Bay is that she does not listen when she is being provided with information. If she had listened over the last couple of months, she would be aware of what has actually transpired and what the legislative requirements are. The Planning Authority received a letter from the proponent of this development the day before it was to have met to consider, among other matters, this matter.
Mr Bailey: You mean your department sent it a letter a day before it was due to be heard.
Mr REED: I will not be interrupted, Mr Speaker.
The letter indicated a deferral of the applications that had been made. After receiving such a request, the Planning Authority had no alternative but to defer consideration. It is incorrect for the member for Fannie Bay to accuse the Planning Authority of inappropriate action in this regard. The deferral could well have occurred 5 minutes before the meeting. As it happened, it occurred the day before. I sympathise with those people who were inconvenienced by the deferral. The fact is that the authority has an ability to do that and that exists for obvious reasons.
On the radio this morning, the member for Fannie Bay said that the government - I believe she referred to me in particular - tried to sneak this through.
Ms Martin: 22 December. That ...
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Page 1244
Mr REED: Mr Speaker, I have a few comments to make in relation to that. First, while I recognise that people do go on leave over Christmas and they may not have the ability to pick up issues, the world really cannot stop because of Christmas.
It is no good your sneering at me or trying to ...
Ms Martin: I can't believe it.
Mr REED: Just listen to the facts.
If people consider that they have been disadvantaged because they were unaware of the notifications or unable to make their submissions, there is always the option to extend the period for which the application is on public display. In a much more responsible and considered approach, the member for Leanyer, the local member for the area concerned, expressed to me the views and wishes of the residents in the area who were seeking an extension of the public notification period. The member for Leanyer met with representatives from the area to hear their concerns. The member for Leanyer made public statements about this matter, but he did so in a correct and well-managed way.
Mr Bailey: Provided he is on your side, you mean? This pompous arrogance is overwhelming.
Ms Martin: I said: `Please consider the facts. People are ...
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr REED: He did not suggest that we were trying to sneak it through or that anything underhand was happening. He is aware ...
Mr Ede: He is your mate - what do you think!
Mr REED: No, he is not my mate. It is not because of that. It is a matter ...
Mr Ede: `He is not my mate'!
Mr REED: It is a matter of competence and your incompetence. The member for Fannie Bay's incompetence is best illustrated by the fact that she knows that there are legislative requirements that must be pursued in relation to the advertising of matters of this kind. I would like her to explain how she can suggest that there was an attempt to sneak this through when there were no less than 5 advertisements in the media. There were ads of about quarter-page size in the NT News on no fewer than 3 occasions. In the Litchfield Times, on no fewer than 2 occasions, there were half-page ads. That is hardly a measure that one would take if one was attempting to sneak something through.
There are 2 things that the member for Fannie Bay has to pursue as the shadow spokesman for lands, planning and environment. First, she has to be honest with the people of the Northern Territory and not try to suggest that things are being snuck through or that the processes are being short-circuited or that the processes have not been followed. The
Page 1245
processes were followed to the letter. The other thing that she has to do is to become familiar with exactly what the requirements are. She should have a look at what the legislation says. She would do well to follow the lead set by the member for Leanyer who is able to take up these issues on behalf of his constituents in a much more responsible way.
Page 1247
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016