Page 4257 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 29 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The difference between this report and the previous report is in the way it was done. Ms Szuty made it clear to the committee in its final deliberative session that there was going to be a dissenting report. We knew that it was going to happen. I think there might be a lesson in that for you, Mr De Domenico.
The Symonston variation was heard by the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee. There was some debate in the chamber earlier about a survey conducted by consultants in relation to the matter, which has been regarded as commercial-in-confidence. We asked a question about that survey and we were given that advice. The committee also questioned officials, who made it very clear that, in their view, stage 1 of the development could go ahead and would stand on its own merits. It would be viable on its own. That was a pretty important piece of evidence that came before the committee.
We also had to consider other environmental issues such as stormwater run-off and the effect on Jerrabomberra Creek. We had to consider how we would proceed in relation to design and development within areas of native grasses. We know that the eastern lined earless dragon is a resident of those native grass areas and, for the same reasons as before, the Tympanocryptis lineata pinguicolla is a species we ought to know more about before we approve development on their little homes.
Mrs Carnell: It sounds ridiculous when you say that stuff - little homes!
Mrs Grassby: Do they have checked lace curtains on the windows?
MR BERRY: That is the problem with the Liberals. They do not take these issues seriously. This species has to be properly assessed, and we are in the same position with this as we are with the legless lizard. Now is the best time to conduct a survey, count them and assess how many there are. It is pointless making a decision about stages 2 and 3 of this development, as was proposed, until we have all that information in front us for consideration. The first and most important issue in this report by the committee is that it is about fostering development which, on the evidence provided to the committee, will not affect that particular species, certainly in stage 1, and there ought to be a survey in relation to stages 2 and 3 before we proceed down that path. Queanbeyan City Council provided a submission to the committee in which it suggested that, if the committee decided to give the go-ahead, it should do so only in relation to stage 1. The committee adopted that view in due course.
I turn to the recommendation of the committee, which states:
That the committee (a) endorse the Variation for Symonston Section 1 Block 4 and (b) that in view of the potential significance of parts of the site for the conservation of the rare earless dragon -
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .