Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 5 (Hansard) 16 May) . . Page.. 1390 ..

MR WHITECROSS (continuing):

My concern in this regard is compounded by the fact that on ABC radio, when Mr De Domenico announced his new rules on truck parking, he went so far as to suggest that his department would not be going out of their way to enforce these rules but would be sitting back waiting for individual residents to complain. I do not think that is acceptable, quite frankly. In a situation where you are changing the rules, tightening up the rules, you must take charge of the responsibility for ensuring that the new rules are met and complied with. For Mr De Domenico to get off on the wrong foot on that, notwithstanding the fact that he is bringing out these new rules, and say that it will be up to residents to enforce the rules seems to me to be nonsensical. If Mr De Domenico thinks these rules are good rules and workable rules, he also should be telling his department to enforce them, and he should be supplying the resources to enforce them.

Mr Speaker, the other issue which shows up the weakness of Mr De Domenico's approach here is that, as Mr De Domenico rightly says, the current situation has existed for some time. The information I have is that the department, in its various guises, has been unsuccessfully wrestling with this problem for well over 20 years. That means that for well over 20 years these vehicles have been able to park in residential areas without hindrance from the department, and therefore a great deal of custom and practice and history has developed in relation to this matter. In that circumstance, and noting the widespread view in the community that it is not appropriate for heavy vehicles like this to be parked willy-nilly in the suburbs, I would have thought that there was some responsibility on the Government to provide alternative parking options. I accept Mr De Domenico's argument that that is an expensive option.

Mr De Domenico: On Mr Lamont's costings, not mine.

MR WHITECROSS: I accept that Mr Lamont may also have had those costings done. I am not doubting the costings; I accept that it may be expensive. This is something that the community has to weigh up. We are talking about an improvement in amenity in the suburbs, for which there is widespread support. I think it is appropriate, if the Government really wants to change a long-established practice, that it be willing to make some financial commitment to offering alternatives. I am sure that there are heavy vehicle operators out there who would be only too happy to park their vehicles somewhere else if they felt that they were going to be secure and that their very large investment in that machinery was not going to be put at risk. Mr Speaker, those two areas are areas where I think the Government could do more. As I have said, they are areas of executive action, not areas which are directly in the control of the legislature.

That brings me to the Greens' alternative views on this. We can debate this more fully when the Greens' motion comes on. It ought to be noted that one of the weaknesses of legislatures which is seldom acknowledged by people on the crossbenches is that not everything can be done by passing an Act of parliament. Some things have to be done through the executive arm of government, not through legislative power.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .