STANSBURY MARINA

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (14:57): I seek leave to make a personal explanation before asking the Leader of the Government a question.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Do you mean a brief explanation?

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: A brief explanation.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Thank you, Mr President, and thank you for your protection. My question is to the Minister for Urban Planning and Development regarding the Stansbury marina. Family First are not generally opposed to development. However, clearly the Stansbury marina proposal is a fundamentally flawed development that will work against the best interests of that local community and the environment, and it will not provide adequate infrastructure for the increase in population, either. The developer has had a very long period of time—

An honourable member: Is this a speech or what?

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: This is the explanation. The developer has had a very long time to get his EIS and other applications in order. Clearly, they are still not in order. Why is the minister giving them another three weeks, and why does he not apply the 'early no' rule today?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (14:58): Essentially because crown law advice is that one needs to provide natural justice, otherwise the decision might be challenged. It is the Governor who makes the decision, acting of course on the advice of the cabinet. The action that I have taken—and I set this out in the statement I made on Tuesday in relation to this matter—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: —is that firstly—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! Government backbenchers will come to order, too.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Earlier this year, I wrote to the proponent because the EIS had not been produced, even though I think the guidelines had been set by DAC some time back. I think it was the end of 2007; certainly it was a fair while ago. It was back in 2007 that either the project was declared or the guidelines were set. I wrote to the proponent giving them three months, which I thought was reasonable, to then produce an EIS indicating that if they did not produce the EIS I would then consider an 'early no'.

However, just before the deadline the proponent did put up an EIS and so had complied with that request. I think I was duty bound to consider that request, and I did so. As I indicated the other day, for a number of reasons the quality of that EIS was not sufficient, and therefore I decided that I would not put it out for public consultation, because it just did not address adequately the issues which had been set by the Development Assessment Commission and, as also indicated the other day, it had significantly changed in scope from the original envisaged project. So, really, the answer is that the advice I have is that, before one gives an early no, one is obliged to give the proponent natural justice, and I am doing that. The proponent now has a couple of weeks left to come up with reasons, and I need to consider those, but, certainly from what I have seen to date, there would have to be some very special reasons indeed why I would not take the course of action of giving the project an early no.