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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Tuesday, 30 March 2004) . . Page.. 1299 ..

addressing any shortcomings that may exist in the draft PA before lodging it as a final document. Extensive comments from agencies were provided to enable finalisation of the PA—I think it is this process that Ms Tucker alludes to as a failure of process—which was then submitted to PALM in November 2002.

The final PA included a detailed assessment and consisted of three volumes, two of which were detailed technical reports and reports on consultation. The PA was then advertised for public comment during December 2002 and early January 2003. A copy of the PA was also provided to the Conservation Council as required under part 4 of the land act. Over 100 public submissions were received and considered as part of PALM’s evaluation of the PA. The Chief Planner, as a delegate of the minister, determined that the PA adequately identified the range of possible environmental impacts and that no further assessments in the form of a public environment report or EIS were required. However, in evaluating the PA, PALM recommended that further actions or investigations should be undertaken at a later detailed planning stage of the proposal.

On 16 January 2003 the government announced it would commence design development and costings for the GDE to be built to the east of the Australian Institute of Sport. As members would be aware, this was not the government’s preferred option but was forced on the government by the actions of the Commonwealth agency, the National Capital Authority. The revised eastern alignment has been subject to previous assessments: the preliminary assessment for the John Dedman Parkway, a four-volume document prepared in October 1997 and the preliminary assessment for the western alignment of the GDE undertaken in 2002-03.

Extra studies on landscape, flora and fauna and archaeology for a portion of the route informed design development. The revised eastern alignment of the GDE has an alignment to the east of the Australian Institute of Sport that is not significantly different from the alignment which was assessed in the John Dedman PA in 1997. The remainder of the proposed road follows the route assessed in the PA for the western alignment of the GDE. In accordance with schedule 2 of the Territory plan a further PA is not required, as the current proposal has been the subject of previous assessments that meet the requirements of the land act.

In the government’s view the time has come to put a full stop at the end of this debate and move on to build this important piece of public infrastructure. The GDE will provide the residents of Gungahlin with a level of accessibility that the rest of Canberra takes for granted. While there are inevitably conflicts between different values when undertaking a project of this type I am confident, as is the government, that an appropriate level of environmental impact assessment has been undertaken and that all necessary statutory steps have been taken and will continue to be followed. It is interesting that this is also the view of the opposition spokesperson on this matter.

I think it is really important in this debate to understand that Ms Tucker’s perspective is that this road should not be built. She can go on all she likes about where she believes processes have failed or fallen down but, at the end of the day, the Greens have an in-principle objection to this road being built, regardless of the process that has been followed. Even if we were able to satisfy Ms Tucker to the degree she asks, she would still object in principle to the construction of this piece of infrastructure. The question

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