Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 9 Hansard (29 August) . . Page.. 2761 ..
MR DE DOMENICO (Minister for Urban Services) (11.16): Mr Speaker, the Government will not be opposing Ms Follett's motion. Let us get that clear from the start. I need to talk, very briefly, because it is not my area of responsibility, about what Ms Follett said - - -
Ms Follett: At least you can sign a letter, Tony.
MR DE DOMENICO: I will get onto that in a minute. I need to talk about some of the letters that were supposedly exchanged between her and Mr Humphries. There are a number of other points also that need to be made. For example, Nudurr Drive was shown in that same location on plans for Gungahlin prior to self-government. So it is not the case that it has, all of a sudden, happened overnight. The plans for the existing location of Nudurr Drive have been there since before 1989. It was shown, in fact, on the Territory Plan that commenced in October 1993. So, before we start laying blame right, left and centre, perhaps we should get to the stage of knowing what the facts are. That plan would have been subject to Assembly scrutiny by planning and environment committees and any member of this Assembly who cared to have a look at it.
The roads that surround Palmerston, Nudurr, Gundaroo and Gungahlin drives are all designed with a 60-metre wide reservation, and they have been on the plan since before 1989. They were always intended to be dual carriageways; once again, that is quite clear. The existing roads - Gundaroo and Gungahlin drives - are built closest to the houses; there is no doubt about that. What is proposed for Nudurr Drive is the same as for the other roads. I am advised that the residents have been consulted about their concerns on a number of occasions. This advice comes to me from the Planning Authority. The sound mounding and landscaping that has been agreed to is not required to enable the road to meet the noise and safety standards. What we are saying is that, notwithstanding the fact that we do not require certain things to be done in order to meet safety standards, they have been done anyway, after consultation with the residents.
The other point to be made is that we have no control over what real estate agents tell prospective residents. I am not aware of what the real estate agents would have said to prospective residents, and my understanding is that no inquiries were made of the planning and land development areas about Nudurr Drive. We need to get that on the record as well.
As I said, I cannot comment on what transpired between Ms Follett's office and Mr Humphries's office. I can say, however, that I signed a letter of response to those residents who wrote to me, first of all saying that it was Mr Humphries's problem, about three or four weeks ago, my recollection is. Apparently, that letter I signed three or four weeks ago did not get to the residents, or to all of the residents; it got to some of them, on my understanding. Therefore, after being contacted by Ms Follett's office two or three days ago, on 23 August, I immediately signed another letter and sent that out on the same day. Obviously, it has now gone to all the residents. I have a copy of that letter in front of me now, and I have another letter to the Nudurr Drive Action Group, signed by me on 26 August.
Ms Follett: I do not contest that, Tony. It has just taken three months to hear anything.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .