Page 225 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 16 February 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
marginally below, but well below. As such, the government cannot justify restoring the mound or increasing the mound. However, as a sign of good faith and of our concern and respect for the representations that have been made, I have asked Roads ACT to continue to monitor noise levels at this site, and a further noise monitoring assessment has been programmed for June this year.
I also take on board the comments which Mr Smyth has just made in relation to tree plantings. That is an area where I believe we can readily respond. I am more than happy to arrange for the department to visit the site and to investigate most particularly the issues in relation to tree plantings and the effect that they may have. I am more than happy to ask the department to investigate that as a priority in relation to plantings. I think that is a quite reasonable request.
I have to say—and this seems tough, but it is not uncaring—that it really is about systems; it is about systems that apply equally to all residents of the ACT. It is about the sort of structures that are in place in relation to representations that government receives regularly on this issue and on issues like perceptions around speed and representations we get in relation to perceptions around road safety. It is important that government have a system that is applied equally and fairly across the city.
I am sure that if Mr Smyth were the minister he would not believe it to be reasonable that, on the basis of a motion in the Assembly, the government should abandon an essentially entrenched system that has been in place for decades and that applied when he was the minister. I would be staggered to think that Mr Smyth, as the minister for territory and municipal services, would lift particular representations up an order—that he would devote resources to rectifying a particular issue of concern to a particular resident when it was not consistent with a pro forma, a standard or an accepted policy position. I would be disappointed if that were the way in which Mr Smyth executed his responsibilities as minister for territory and municipal services, and I am surprised that he would expect me to do it—that he would expect that I would abandon an established procedure, an established policy, an established protocol because he has received representations from residents.
The government’s position in relation to this is reasonable and appropriate. It is exactly the position that Mr Smyth adopted when he was the minister for territory and municipal services. We are sympathetic; we are understanding. We have already conducted significant testing; we will do it again. We will continue to monitor. We take the issue seriously. And we will certainly pursue the issue of tree planting. But it is unreasonable, I believe, for the Assembly to be passing motions that ask the government to abandon, for one group of citizens making representations, an existing protocol that the government applies equally and fairly to all citizens who make this representation.
I know, and I can advise you, that I have received this same representation from citizens across the territory, and I have responded to them in precisely the way that I responded to this constituent. We did the testing, we analysed and assessed the results of the test, and we responded in exactly the way that I have responded in this case. Otherwise, it would not be fair, would it, to those people who sought the same response and we, as a result of the protocol, refused them? Would it be fair? It would not.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video