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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Tuesday, 30 March 2004) . . Page.. 1306 ..

These two steps are typically guided by formal legislative and policy arrangements that also incorporate provisions for community participation. It may be unfortunate but sometimes the end result of a well-informed decision might still be some environmental degradation. However, the assessment process would have identified how best this could be minimised. Even if this were not on the site of the project in question, offsets are sometimes used. I will give an example. Ms Tucker said that this was the first proposal since self-government to take some nature park land. That is true but it is not a vast amount; it is not even a large amount in relative terms.

Thousands of hectares of land have been placed in protection since self-government—I think it would add up to thousands of hectares. I have not heard that in recent arguments. My memory tells me that at Mulligan’s Flat something like 800 hectares, mostly for proposed residential development, was put into nature park and the Jerrabomberra/Symonston development, which the former government did, was largely reserved from residential development. There is a grassy woodland strategy about to be launched whereby hundreds of hectares are to be kept out of Gungahlin—at Gooroo—and protected from residential development. All this is at substantial financial cost, if you were to consider that factor, but nowhere do I hear these points being accepted in broader debate.

All governments in the territory—let me give credit—have followed a strong environmental policy and I think we can see the results here. This road has been on the drawing board for something like 40 years. When the Y-plan was first drawn in by the old National Capital Development Commission, in the 1960s, the route for the Gungahlin Drive was roughly drawn. It has been considered since the first days of this government, with the GET study, and there have been significant changes. Mr Humphries, I think it was, announced that the route closer to Dryandra Street would not be pursued—that was a route that would have inflicted more damage. So the best possible attention has been paid to environmental impact.

The least possible impact is planned for this road as it is now organised. It is simply the least damaging way to proceed. From some of the comments Ms Tucker made and from some of the comments I have read in the press, one would think that Black Mountain was to be bulldozed. We are taking a strip off adjacent to Caswell Drive, but we are not taking the whole darn mountain down, as you might think as you read the paper.

If we look beyond simply environmental issues, this road is needed to meet the social needs of the people of Gungahlin and, indeed, more widely, the needs of all Canberrans. Why should they not have the facilities that other places have? In all the circumstances, this road is necessary. It has long been coming and every opportunity has been made. I called for some idea of the number of submissions or the number of studies, which I was well aware of, I might say—Mrs Dunne mentioned these—and I could get only a small sample, because there are more than I could bring in here.

Mrs Dunne: Half a hundredweight.

MR WOOD: Yes. Beyond the printed stuff, the background material is even more voluminous. This government—and I have to say the former government—have been fully committed. While we differed over a particular part of the route, we have both been

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