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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Tuesday, 30 March 2004) . . Page.. 1302 ..

level of documentation which is required under a preliminary assessment. So, in the ACT, the preliminary assessment is equivalent to an environmental impact statement. You may not like it, but that is what it is all about.

I think this is really about a proxy argument, as Mr Corbell has said—gosh, I am agreeing with the government again—because opponents of a particular piece of capital works have not got the answer they like. It is time people in the ACT were honest about what is happening. This is a proxy argument for something else. If you do not like the road, say that you do not like the road but do not criticise the mountains of work done. There have been two preliminary assessments. Ms Tucker should have taken time—I hope she has—to look at the documentation that went with the latest preliminary assessment. I did not take it all with me. I asked if I could have a copy of the preliminary assessment, picked up a copy and was told that that was volume 1 of about six volumes. It was a lever arch file like this.

Mr Wood: Yes. This is the small one.

MRS DUNNE: There were a couple of small versions and there were about four big, fat lever arch files which covered a range of things.

Ms Tucker: That equals quality, does it?

MRS DUNNE: No, it is not necessarily the “never mind the quality, feel the length” argument; it is an indication of the amount of work done and the issues covered. You really do need to familiarise yourself at least with the table of contents of those documents before you start to criticise them.

Mr Speaker, as I have said, this is really a proxy argument about Gungahlin Drive. No-one really has a particular objection to the operation of part 4 of the land act, they object to Gungahlin Drive being built. I think it is time that the opponents of Gungahlin Drive got over it. I am sorry; it seems to be a minority view. The people of Gungahlin are desperate for this piece of infrastructure and it needs to be built. If it is delayed through all the tricks of the trade in the legal system it will be a shame on the people who have done it because they are depriving the people of Gungahlin of essential infrastructure.

MS DUNDAS (4.15): I would like to thank Ms Tucker for proposing this matter of public importance. I will start by talking specifically about environmental impact statements before getting on to where this debate has gone, and that is to the Gungahlin Drive extension. The Land (Planning and Environment) Act sets out the framework for a range of environmental assessments in the territory. There are provisions to include as part of the preliminary assessment environmental assessments of varying quality. Then there are statutory mechanisms by which a minister can order either a public environment report or an environmental impact statement.

It is my understanding that a public environment report is generally used to gauge further public consultation on the possible environmental effects of a proposed development but does not necessarily inquire into additional environmental effects. An EIS is a much more inquisitive tool which allows a full assessment of the long-term impacts of a development on the environment. However, I note that in both cases there is the ability for the environment minister to limit the terms of reference of an EIS.

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