Page 1042 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 20 April 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: We might also concentrate on some relevance.
MR LAMONT: But there is still time, Mr Humphries, for him to be a former deputy leader, I am sure. I suggest, Mr Humphries, that there are difficulties in implementing the motion in the terms you are outlining. I do understand and accept the broad thrust of getting people involved in that area, but I think people need to bear in mind that there are some difficulties with it.
MR DE DOMENICO (12.00): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise briefly to comment on this motion of Mr Humphries's. It appears that everybody who has spoken on it agrees with Mr Humphries. I do not know why there is angst amongst any of us on this quite sensible motion. Interestingly, a couple of points Mr Lamont made need responding to, in particular when he said, "You want to change things". As Mr Humphries said, that is not true; that is not what the motion says. As a direct example of that, in the case of Starritt Place, Macarthur, I am advised that the residents were informed by the Department of the Environment, Land and Planning that it was about to come in and plant a certain species of tree and that there was some concern expressed by some of those residents about the type of tree that was going to be planted there. Lo and behold, what did happen eventually was that the trees that were planted were not the same species the residents were advised of.
For anyone to say that Mr Humphries's motion is unworkable is just not true. I think all of us will recall that people are very interested in what happens close to their front yards. Who will ever forget last year when a certain resident of Fadden came home, after spending the whole weekend doing his garden, to find a great big hole in his nature strip because someone had decided, without telling him, that they were going to put a bus-stop in front of his yard. He was very concerned.
Once again, all Mr Humphries's motion is seeking to do, and I think the Assembly as a whole has given it broad support, is reflect the fact that, when suburbs are established and people are living in houses and when there is no advance understanding of what is going to be planted there, you could at least knock on the door and say, "We intend to plant a gum tree or an oak tree or whatever. What are your views?". It is as simple as that. If it is a matter of saying, "It has been decided that the natural landscaping in this suburb or in the street is supposed to be gum trees or pine trees or whatever", at least the resident then knows what the advance planning is. In this situation, I am advised, the residents were advised that they were going to plant whatever species of tree it is, some expressed concern about that and, lo and behold, once the trees were planted it was found that they were a different species from the ones the residents were advised were going to be planted.
All that Mr Humphries's motion is attempting to do, which the Assembly should support, is to say that there should be a little more consultation. It does not do anybody any harm, for heaven's sake. As Ms Szuty and other speakers have said, we can be justifiably proud of our landscaping in the ACT. It is the best I have seen throughout the country.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .