Page 1698 - Week 06 - Thursday, 20 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The central theme of my objections to this final environmental impact statement is that it has its priorities back to front. Instead of assessing a proposal in an objective fashion to ascertain possible environmental impacts, the final process sets out to examine the proposal as a fait accompli and discusses mitigating circumstances and monitoring options. The foundation for the process should be good-quality maps setting out exactly what is proposed and what already exists. If it is mentioned in the environmental impact statement or exists within a reasonable range of the development, then it should be located on a map. The conservation values of the area, including flora and fauna habitats, should also be set out in map form in the final document. It is not good enough to have these represented in the draft document and then deleted from the final document, particularly when there is a difference between the areas under discussion in the two statements.
The next important tool that would assist assessment of the environmental impact of the proposed development is an objective description of the physical features of the land in question. This would include information about rainfall, watercourses, airflows and temperature data across the area, hills, rises and hollows. Against this data should be set the characteristics of the area - soil types, bedrock condition, propensity to waterlogging and, indeed, many of the things that were in fact discussed in this environmental impact statement. The sections on the geophysical environment and water quality issues I found to be some of the better sections of the report. This level of information also needs to be made available on the other issues of importance, such as the flora and fauna populations, the Aboriginal sites and artefacts in the area, the cultural heritage significance of the area, and other relevant archaeological factors.
Again, it is not sufficient to refer interested parties back to a draft document. This reinforces a feeling in the community that public submissions have not had an impact on the decision making process. I find it disturbing that, in a report that, by name at least, purports to consider environmental impacts, the geophysical characteristics - a factor in the engineering considerations of the proposal - get such comprehensive study in the final environmental impact statement, when the recommended flora and fauna studies were not even completed at the time the final environmental impact statement was prepared.
Madam Speaker, I believe that the obvious next step once this material is collected is consulting conservators in the differing affected areas, including discussions with the Ngunnawal representatives about the impact of any development on the sites found to be significant for their environmental, Aboriginal or other heritage values. This includes sites near to a proposed development, as even the legislation recognises at section 123(b)(iv) that development near significant sites has an impact. Sites should be able to be excluded from further consideration at this point.
The next step would be to identify social impacts, both in the proposed development area and across the subregion. This would include traffic surveys, user surveys of the facilities available, noise effects if applicable, and a range of issues which are included in this environmental impact statement. Of concern is the fact that environmental and cultural issues are dealt with in just under 30 pages, while the built environment and social issues take nearly 80 pages, replicating a lot of the content of the draft environmental impact statement on these built environment matters. Again, the emphasis seems to be on enabling
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .