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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Tuesday, 30 March 2004) . . Page.. 1295 ..

matter because the GDE is but a terrible example of a failure to take seriously the responsibility to, at the very least, know what we are doing to our environment when we undertake major capital works. A full environmental impact assessment is important whatever the decision about construction for capital works.

It is clear in the GDE process that the government’s statements about commitment to protecting biodiversity are nothing but rhetoric. The commitments made in the spatial plan, the social plan, the Canberra plan and also, I would argue, through the Human Rights Act are not worth the paper they are written on. Obviously the driving force for transport policy is not thoughtful consideration of the evidence and it is not an understanding of the scientific reality of endangered species and the continual degradation of the ecological health of our region, it is politics and votes; it is about winning the next election. While this is what I have come to expect from Liberal governments in this territory, I have to say it is extremely disappointing to realise that there really is little difference between the policies of the two major parties in this regard.

As someone who has been involved in this issue since 1989 I can say that, in evaluating the environmental and social implications, the process has consistently been sloppy and inadequate. Whether it was the superficial Maunsell PA process, the committee inquiry of the last Assembly, the politicking of the NCA, the current government’s failure to even ask expert groups such as the Flora and Fauna Committee, the Natural Resource Management Committee or the Office of Sustainability for advice, the consistent thread has been no care or diligence.

Once again the scientific community is speaking out against this lack of care and I would like to acknowledge the work of Roslyn Beeby and the Canberra Times in informing the broader community about the issues. However the sad reality is that, despite this public debate, it appears as though the government hopes it can just ram its way through the science and informed comment for its own political ends. It will ram its way through the endangered species and the research potential our biodiversity currently offers.

As one letter writer to the Canberra Times said: what’s the problem? People can go to the Brindabellas if they like the bush. Maybe that is the line the government takes. When you think of it, we could extend that logic and just say let’s have no constraints on development at all, and we could all end up going to Kakadu. This Labor government will have the distinction of being not only the first government to set up an office of sustainability but also the first since self-government to take a precious nature park for development, disregarding its responsibility to ensure a proper environmental impact assessment.

According to the document Save The Ridge, received under FOI, we know that in 1997 ACT Environment made it clear that the PA process failed to properly regard the impact of the road on declared endangered communities and threatened species. We also know that the road is opposed by highly respected scientists including Professor Cockburn, who has been doing important ecological research on Black Mountain since 1986, with findings published in the international journal, Nature. The site of this research will be bulldozed by this government, severely limiting future scope.

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