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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Tuesday, 30 March 2004) . . Page.. 1297 ..

recorded on Black Mountain, but this latest discovery is the first since then. It is possible that other specimens may exist in the area. Because of the plant’s habitat it is difficult to identify, except in the flowering season. So you would think that the discovery of a new population or resurgent population of the small purple pea would attract the attention of the Flora and Fauna Committee, and that management of the area would be a priority.

It is to be regretted that Mr Stanhope chooses to personally attack people of the calibre of those he mentioned in question time today. These people have scientific expertise and have been donating their time and expertise to the ACT for a number of years. The fact that they are now choosing to make public comments is not to be condemned and attacked by the Chief Minister, but should be welcomed. The fact that they were given a briefing does not in any way remove the responsibility of the government to have proactively sought advice from those groups, established to advise them on this important issue. I include the Office of Sustainability in that requirement as well.

I heard Mr Stanhope say that a PA was an EIS, and I saw Mrs Dunne shake her head. I think it was Mr Stanhope who launched the Environmental Defender’s Office ACT Environmental Law Handbook. It is a pity he did not read it. For his information, I will point out that in the ACT there is a sequential system at EIA: a preliminary assessment—PA; a public environment report—PER; an environmental impact assessment—EIS; and an inquiry. If the minister decides a proposal is of sufficient significance or that the PA has not adequately addressed the impact and therefore requires further impact assessment, he or she can direct that either a PER or an EIS can be prepared. I will not read the rest because I do not have time in an MPI, but I suggest the Chief Minister reads it and that other members read it too.

It is really important that in this issue the Minister for Environment, as he has done in other matters—and I give him credit for that—shows courage and leadership. Of course there will be cries of “Backdown!” and other predictable political responses, but the reality will be that he has shown a respect for science, a valuing of biodiversity and a commitment to ensuring a sustainable future for Canberra. The question of whether an EIS is done on a particular piece of major capital works is largely up to the minister, as I have pointed out. Under the Land (Planning and Environment) Act the minister may direct that an assessment “be made of the proposal if, in the opinion of the relevant Minister based on reasonable grounds, the environmental impact of the proposal would be of sufficient significance”. This can only be done within the prescribed time after the PA has been submitted.

This is where we run into the up-to-date problem. A PA was completed in 1997 but that was before the current route was known, and it obviously missed extremely important facts about the environmental impact. We have just found another extremely vulnerable species, as I have explained, but that is clearly not significant to this government.

Under a PA an EIS requires the proponent to address possible alternatives to the proposal. In our case study this would include the alternative transport options for Gungahlin. For example, the scope of the EIS in this case could include looking at the effects of expanding existing roads, or converting Northbourne Avenue to make transit lanes, light rail links and so on. It should include up-to-date analyses of population predictions and the commuting and other travel changes since Horse Park Drive was extended and the bus services increased.

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