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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Tuesday, 30 March 2004) . . Page.. 1298 ..

An EIS is an essential tool in understanding what we are doing. It is clear that the government has missed this point in this whole sorry saga of misguided attempts to solve Gungahlin’s commuter congestion with this new road through our nature park. As I said, the Canberra plan, social plan and spatial plan all make a commitment to preserving the biodiversity of the ACT and region, yet these commitments obviously have no relevance with regard to the GDE. The Office of Sustainability is apparently not relevant in this issue either. The Human Rights Act and the social rights as listed in the social plan are also relevant because it is recognised that all rights are indivisible and interrelated. It is therefore recognised that rights to health and life are clearly related to rights to a healthy environment.

In conclusion, I think there is still an opportunity for this government to show real credibility on this issue and to make the credible commitments in those plans actually mean something. Be prepared to take another look at this whole proposal to put a freeway through ecologically important areas; talk to the scientists in this city—I asked that in question time but Mr Stanhope chose not to answer that part of the question at all—get formal briefings from the Flora and Fauna Committee, the Natural Resources Management Committee and the Office of Sustainability; actually do the work and take a decision that will benefit Canberra into the future that the government can be proud of rather than ashamed of.

MR CORBELL (Minister for Health and Minister for Planning) (3.57): Major capital works in the ACT are subject to the same stringent requirements under the Land (Planning and Environment) Act 1991 as other major developments in the ACT. Where these works fall within the proposals listed in appendix 2 of the Territory plan, a mandatory preliminary assessment—PA—is required to be undertaken. Major capital works include major utility installations such as the Gungaderra Trunk Sewer in Gungahlin, treatment plants such as the Mt Stromlo water treatment plant and new major roads including the William Hovell Drive extension, the Fairbairn Avenue upgrade and the Gungahlin Drive extension.

All of these major capital works have been subject to the environmental impact assessment process in 2002-03 as required under part 4 of the land act. The first level of impact assessment in the ACT is always a PA. The purpose of the PA is to provide an initial evaluation of impacts and determine if further assessment of the proposal is required. A PA provides the information, including community comments, necessary to determine whether further impact assessment is required. If, in the minister’s opinion, the environmental impact of the proposal is of sufficient significance he or she may direct the proponent to undertake further impact assessment in the form of a public environment report or an environmental impact statement.

Using the rigorous process applied to the GDE as an example it can be quite clearly seen that the requirements of the land act provide a robust framework to ensure that any environmental impacts are identified and adequately addressed. For Ms Tucker’s information, a draft preliminary assessment or PA for the western alignment of the Gungahlin Drive extension was submitted to the then Planning and Land Management Group in October 2002. While the submission of a draft PA is not a requirement under the land act, most proponents choose to submit a draft document which is then circulated to relevant government agencies for comment. This process assists the proponent in

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