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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 6 Hansard (15 June) . . Page.. 1849 ..

Save the Ridge states that it has 'evidence that ours was not the only submission that was misrepresented in this way in the [committee's] report'.

In the absence of specific examples, the committee cannot respond to this generalised claim. However, the committee draws attention to its admission, in the first page of the Appendix [at page 153 of the report], that 'the information in the Appendix is accurate to the best of the committee's ability' and, if errors occurred in the compilation of the Appendix, the committee 'apologises for such errors'.

Point 8

Save the Ridge asks why the committee 'misrepresented the views of the majority of those who made submissions to the inquiry?'

The basis for this claim appears to be that nearly all submissions were received before the government decided, in November 2000, to delete the proposed Barry Drive link from the eastern alignment. A majority of the committee did not consider that this decision negated all the evidence that it had received. Nor did a majority of the committee consider that there was need for a further round of public hearings, given that the committee had already held six public hearings, received over 800 submissions and was 19 months into its inquiry when the government's decision was made.

When compiling the Appendix to the report the committee explicitly included a column identifying whether a submitter expressed a clear view about the Barry Drive link. This column, like the other columns in the Appendix, was included for information purposes only. It reflected the interest of many submitters (including Saving the Ridge) in the number of submitters 'for' and 'against' certain aspects of the inquiry. It was not meant to show 'votes' as claimed by Save the Ridge.

In reaching a conclusion about the GDE's alignment, the committee was not swayed one way or the other by the number of submitters 'for' or 'against' the GDE or its alignment [see chapter 13 of the report].

Point 9

Save the Ridge asks why do the totals on pages 138/9 of the report 'only add up to 683 when it is stated that 891 submissions were made to the inquiry'?

The reason is that some submissions did not address the matters summarised in paragraph 13.21 of the report, i.e. they did not identify whether they were for or against the GDE, nor whether they favoured an eastern or western route or a Barry Drive link. They raised other matters but not these particular ones. (Examples include some submissions expressing concern about the effect of the GDE upon native vegetation or expressing concern about Gungahlin bus services but, in neither case, making a comment about whether the GDE should go ahead.)

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