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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 08 Hansard (Wednesday, 4 August 2004) . . Page.. 3422 ..

across the fields in the direction of Chisholm. The child was found an hour later wandering on Isabella Drive.

Minister, has a public interest disclosure been lodged for this incident? Has the matter also been reported to WorkCover as an industrial safety incident?

MS GALLAGHER: This is the first I have heard of that incident, Mrs Burke. In relation to the public interest disclosure: I am not aware of one. In relation to whether it was referred to WorkCover: I am not aware of that either. I have received no briefing from the department about that, nor have I received any complaints or has anyone contacted my office about that issue. I will find out more about it, but that is my answer at this stage.

MRS BURKE: I thank the minister for agreeing to follow up on that answer for me. Minister, have you established a chain of command to ensure that you are kept informed about serious occupational health and safety breaches by your department, given your responsibilities as a minister?

MS GALLAGHER: Yes, I have. The department knows that, where there are incidents that should be brought to my attention, they are brought to my attention. In this case, I will go back and have a look at what has happened with that. It was not brought to my attention. I will take appropriate action if it turns out that it should have been. It sounds like it should have been.

Planning

MRS CROSS: My question is to the acting planning minister. Mr Quinlan, a very distressed constituent of mine has contacted my office on the matter of a dual occupancy development of two two-storey homes under way on block 6, section 13 in Deakin—an 868 square metre lot next to his residence and in a core area.

Objections to this development were first raised by neighbours in November 2003. ACTPLA noted the objections but approved the development plan, with some minor modifications. My constituent took an appeal to the AAT and was joined by the neighbour on the other side of the block that is being developed. The upshot of the mediation of the AAT was a compromise agreement by all parties. Modifications were made to the plans, and these went to ACTPLA for incorporation. This agreed reported position was taken in March by ACTPLA to the AAT, which ruled in support of the agreement. It was believed by the constituent that that was the end of the matter.

Recently, work began on the construction and it became apparent that some changes had been made to what was agreed by all parties in March. On 28 July, this constituent received, under the cover of an unsigned, undated letter from a staffer—whose name I will not disclose, and whose position in ACTPLA is also not disclosed in this letter—notification that ACTPLA had approved a minor amendment to development application 20038128A on 2 July. This action by ACTPLA, despite the earlier agreement of all parties, was taken arbitrarily and without any consultation with the constituent. There was obviously no intention by ACTPLA to notify the other interested parties before the present work on the lot was commenced.

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