MOUNT BARKER DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (15:34): I would like to raise some issues in the house this afternoon concerning the Mount Barker Development Plan Amendment and the comments that have been coming from some members of the community in relation to the role that the Liberal Party has played as a consequence of the DPA. Several letters have been written to the local paper and some public comments made criticising the Liberal Party in its opposition to the DPA—comments along the lines that the Liberal Party has not been able to convince the majority of the community in its opposition to the DPA, that our attack has been mild and other criticisms levelled at the Liberal Party.

I want to put on the record this afternoon that those claims are wrong. The Liberal Party has led the campaign from well before any other political party entered the debate in opposition to the DPA. I undertook community consultation in April 2009, sending out 9,000 communication forms seeking feedback from the community in relation to the government's proposal to rezone good, prime agricultural land for residential development. I received over 1,300 responses, in excess of 13 per cent—

Ms THOMPSON: I rise on a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: A point of order. The member for Reynell.

Mr Goldsworthy interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We will stop the clock.

Ms THOMPSON: Madam Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to page 13 of the Notice Paper and Order of the Day No. 1, Mount Barker Development Plan Amendment. I was listening carefully to the member for Kavel, and initially I thought that his remarks did not trespass upon the matters covered by that order, but I would like you to consider whether in fact he is now trespassing onto the subject of that item.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is actually a very good point.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Have you stopped the clock?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We have stopped the clock, member for Kavel. You have already asked us that and we heard you the first time. Yes, I think that is a relevant point of order.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Just as a point of explanation, I presume that you are talking about the motion that I moved condemning the government concerning the Mount Barker DPA. Is that right?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is that what you are referring to, member for Reynell?

Ms THOMPSON: The member should note that asking questions across the floor of the chamber is not appropriate.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Is that—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No; ask me—through the chair.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am asking a point of clarification. The motion that I moved last sitting week was specifically condemning the government in relation to the Mount Barker DPA. This is a separate issue, a separate matter, concerning the DPA. It has nothing to do with the motion.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bear with me for one moment.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me, it is not a frivolous point of the order. It is an extremely serious point of order, and I uphold that point of order. Member for Kavel, clearly you still have three minutes in which to discuss whatever you so choose.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Thank you.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: But I am going to be quite creative here. Bear with me. If you would like to talk about something completely different, and I realise that you have been stopped mid-flow, we could perhaps go to the member for Mawson and come back to you for a whole five minutes.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: No, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am quite satisfied to continue my remarks.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Clearly not in the same vein, however?

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: It is in relation to the criticism levelled at the Liberal Party in terms of its opposition to rezoning agricultural land for residential development in Mount Barker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Kavel, I think that the member—sit down please, thank you. I think that you will find that the member for Reynell actually makes a very good point. She does, and I do uphold it. I do not want you to argue with me about it. I would like you to speak about something else.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I want to speak about the Greens party and its supporters levelling criticism unnecessarily at the Liberal Party and its position in relation to rezoning land in Mount Barker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You wish to speak about the Greens? Excellent.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I wish to speak about political involvement in relation to that issue.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excellent. We have still stopped the clock, so that is fine, and we will begin the clock again.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Thank you. It is my understanding that it is the intention of the Greens party and its supporters to perpetuate a myth that they are the party that has been leading the campaign in relation to that matter. As I said, I implemented a survey of the constituency in those three towns—Mount Barker, Littlehampton and Nairne—and the strong feedback in relation to that survey was that the vast majority of the community was supportive of retaining prime agricultural land for the purpose of agriculture.

A number of letters have been written to the local paper criticising the Liberal Party. I want to point out that I think it is a bit steep for the Greens' supporters to try to claim the high moral ground in relation to this issue when it was their preferences that supported the Labor Party's re-election at the election last year.

A particular person wrote to the local paper stating that the Greens ran an open ticket in Heysen and Kavel and in most other electorates. That is my understanding of the wording, or words to that effect, as I do not have the particular text here with me. I have done a check of the website of the electoral commission and in every key marginal seat the Greens published a specific how-to-vote card preferencing the ALP candidate above the Liberal candidate.

The claim made by that person is incorrect, and that is a clear example of the supporters, I believe, of the Greens party trying to perpetuate a myth that they are taking the high moral ground in relation to their opposition and that the Liberal Party has done very little in relation to opposing the rezoning.