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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Tuesday, 30 March 2004) . . Page.. 1303 ..

Ms Tucker has used the word ‘full’ in relation to environmental impact statements in the illustration of today’s matter of public importance. I think that means we need to further examine the land act in relation to EISs in order to ensure that they are allowed to cover the full scope of the inquiry into the environmental effects of a development. An EIS allows an investigation and provides an understanding about how to address the issues raised. It might not say: this is the only solution, you cannot do anything but build this project here and now and it will have environmental impacts; it might also then propose solutions to address the concerns raised in the environmental impact statement.

The assessment done in November 2002 for the Gungahlin Drive extension in relation to the western alignment proposed some solutions to deal with populations of species of animals which would be impacted on by the route and how those key concerns could possibly be addressed, such as under-road paths and other solutions. So there is scope to work out solutions to the issues raised by an EIS. It will not automatically mean that the project is stopped.

I think it is unfortunate that governments have rarely invoked the land act to provide for a full and frank EIS. From my recollection, an EIS has been carried out only twice by an ACT government—in relation to new suburbs in West Belconnen when those areas were included in the Territory plan in the early 1990s. The fact that ministers so rarely use the EIS provisions in the land act should lead us to severely question their restriction to executive uses. Perhaps we should allow the Assembly or some independent authority the power to trigger them, rather than leave it up to an unwilling government.

Turning to the question of Gungahlin Drive and to answer some criticism put forward by the Minister for Planning, the ACT Democrats have always supported provision of a proper environmental impact statement into the construction of this road. We went to the last election supporting the western option for the Gungahlin Drive extension and were adamant in our opposition to the eastern option. Unlike the ACT Labor Party, we are sticking to our promises. It has been fascinating to watch how quickly Labor has changed its stance from when it was in opposition and to see that their policy on Gungahlin Drive is now exactly the same as that of the Liberals. Minister, the Democrats support a road but not this road. I thought that was what the ALP was elected on back in 2001. The current Minister for Planning put his opposition to the eastern alignment when he was opposing variation to Territory plan No 138. I quote what he said:

Labor believes that the western alignment is the most appropriate alignment for the Gungahlin Drive Extension—

And that it—

—has been identified as far back as 1991 as the best possible route.

It continues:

It is the route which has the least possible impact on the cultural, recreational and environmental amenity of the O’Connor and Bruce Ridge area. This is, of course, in stark contrast to the Government’s flawed eastern alignment.

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