PLANNING REFORMS
476. Mrs J.M.C. STOJKOVSKI to the Minister for Planning:
I refer to the McGowan Labor
government's landmark reforms to planning law that will drive economic activity
as the state recovers from the impacts of COVID-19.
(1) Can the minister outline to the house what will be
the next stage in delivering this government's comprehensive
package of planning reforms and how they will support local jobs and businesses?
(2) Can the
minister advise the house whether she is aware of anyone who wants to
compromise or undermine this government's efforts to support the state's
economic recovery?
Ms R.
SAFFIOTI replied:
I thank the member for Kingsley for
her question and, of course, her interest in planning, given her substantial
experience in that area.
(1)–(2) First
of all, I put on record my thanks to everyone in this house and the upper house
who supported the Planning and Development Amendment Bill 2020, which we have
just passed through this house. This is very important legislation to drive
jobs and economic activity in this state. I put on record my thanks to the
Liberal Party and the Nationals WA for their positive engagement and to the
crossbench in particular in the upper house who put forward some amendments and
also worked with us to get this bill through. I thank everybody.
I also thank my team, in particular
Kathy Bonus, Stephen Ferguson and Gail McGowan from the department; David McFerran
and Emma in my office; John Carey, the parliamentary secretary; and also the
Premier and cabinet for their support for what is very significant legislation.
This
legislation of course will help streamline approvals in WA and really drive new
projects to drive jobs in WA. As part of the negotiations, the threshold for
projects going into the significant pathway has dropped to $20 million for the
metropolitan area and $5 million for regional WA. That will probably see more
projects go through that significant pathway. It was a negotiated outcome and I
think it will do a lot to create more jobs in WA. We are now moving to
establish that team in the department. The new assessment team is being
established as we speak. We are also making sure that we draft the necessary
regulations as soon as possible to have them in place, particularly the
measures to cut small business costs and also to facilitate a smoother
approvals process. I think this pathway will really help drive jobs and new
projects in WA.
Of course, as part of our economic confidence
and our confidence in the community, one of the key reasons that WA is moving
forward rapidly is the hard borders in this state. And there are many who are trying to break that by challenging that.
Yesterday, I described the many times the Leader of the Opposition has
called for us to abandon the hard borders in Western Australia. Many times,
both in this house and also through the media, there is quote after quote after
quote about getting rid of that border and, if we did that, of course that would
undermine confidence in our economy and in our community.
Other people out there are trying to
challenge those hard borders, including, for example, Clive Palmer who has put
forward a High Court challenge in relation to the borders. We understand that he
is now supported by the federal government, members, in trying to undermine our
stance on the borders. The question is: what is the WA Liberal Party's
stance on the Clive Palmer challenge? Does the Leader of the Opposition support the Clive Palmer challenge in
the High Court? Does the WA Liberal Party support the Clive Palmer
challenge? No response. Obviously, it might do. It might already have had
negotiations; we do not know that. Maybe they have compared notes. Does the
Liberal Party support the challenge?
Mr Z.R.F. Kirkup: We cannot
be asked a question in question time, Speaker.
The SPEAKER: But you cannot
ask me a question either!
Ms R. SAFFIOTI: I think it is
incumbent on the opposition today to outline whether they support the High
Court challenge. Do they line up with Christian Porter and the federal Liberal
Party who are challenging the validity of our borders in the High Court?