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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 6 Hansard (15 June) . . Page.. 1848 ..

Point 6

Save the Ridge asks why the committee ignored 'significant new environmental research ... which shows O'Connor Ridge contains one of the highest value remnant woodland areas in the ACT'?

The committee did not ignore such research but simply came to a different conclusion than Save the Ridge about the relative emphasis to be given to such research when reaching a conclusion about the GDE.

Point 7

Save the Ridge claims that its position on the GDE and its alignment were 'misrepresented' in the committee's report. Save the Ridge, in Attachment A to its correspondence, provides excerpts form Dr Tanner's oral testimony.

A majority of the committee (Mr Corbell dissenting) does not dispute this testimony but points out that it needs to be set alongside the following passage in the written submission by Save the Ridge dated 31/8/99 [page 12 of Part A of that submission]:

'We oppose that proposed eastern extension of the Gungahlin Parkway though Bruce/O'Connor Ridge... In particular, we oppose the eastern spur to Barry Drive. If there must be a road, and we are far from convinced that this is necessary, the 'community option' or western route is preferable on several environmental grounds' [emphasis added].

This passage indicates that Save the Ridge is not convinced of the need for the GDE. The same point applies to the petition attached to the submission dated 31/8/01 by Save the Ridge for it too raises a doubt about whether the petition's signatories want the GDE at all. The relevant words on the petition are:

We... oppose the proposed eastern extension of the Gungahlin Parkway through O'Connor Ridge.... If there must be a road, the 'community option' or western route is preferable...' [emphasis added].

It is on the basis of this written material submitted by Save the Ridge that the committee placed a question mark in the column headed 'For GDE' in the Appendix to the committee's report [see page 174]. Mr Corbell considers that the position of Save the Ridge was misrepresented in this regard.

While still at page 174 of the committee's report, the column alongside 'For GDE' identifies whether a submitter expressed a clear preference for the eastern or western alignment. In view of the above qualification about the need for the GDE at all, the committee did not feel that it could state that Save the Ridge was 'for' the western option (though it was readily apparent that Save the Ridge preferred the western alignment to the eastern one if a GDE was inevitable).

Rather than claiming that Save the Ridge was 'for' the western option the committee acknowledged that every piece of evidence from Save the Ridge made It plain that Save the Ridge certainly was against the eastern alignment; hence the words 'not east' in the column headed 'East or west route' in the Appendix of the committee's report.

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