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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Wednesday, 31 March 2004) . . Page.. 1423 ..

exist within this community to debate these issues, and for everybody within this community to put their views.

Those views have always been welcomed. They were particularly welcomed at the stage of the preliminary assessment, which is a process that does, by statue, require public consultation and public involvement. There have been three occasions on which there has been that formal, public, statutorily provided requirement to consult.

Of course it has been a contentious issue. It is a difficult issue. It is a hard issue that has required hard decisions. None of us likes the idea that the environment will suffer as a result of the construction of this road. It is just that we have taken what we regard as the right decision, a balanced decision and a decision in relation to our commitment to sustainable development; that we have sought to balance the environmental, social and economic needs of the territory.

One of the things that concern me about the debate at the moment is that the social needs, particularly of the residents of Gungahlin, are not being evenly balanced by the proponents of no road for Gungahlin. They completely ignore that significant arm or leg of our commitment to sustainable development, namely, our commitment and our need as a government to meet the social needs of those we represent. It is in balancing the social, economic and environmental needs and responsibilities that we make the hard decisions we do. In making those decisions, we seek to balance all of those elements of decision making.

I would welcome the views of the scientists, of the advisory committees and of all those others that have contributed. They have undoubtedly informed the decisions and the detail of the decisions that governments have taken—this government and the previous government. We welcomed them during the formative stages, we welcomed them during the community consultation and we welcomed them in the public forums and through letters to the editor. We would have welcomed them even at the time the decision was taken. But I have to say that the decision has been taken. It has been taken after seven years. The contracts are now signed. Money has changed hands. The bulldozers have moved in. It is too late. We have signed contracts worth millions of dollars. I am not going to cancel them.

MR SPEAKER: Order! The minister’s time has expired.

MS TUCKER: The answer seems to be to continue to attack the individuals, rather than taking responsibility.

MR SPEAKER: Come to the supplementary question.

MS TUCKER: Can you tell the Assembly how you plan to protect—

Mr Stanhope: I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. The statement was false. I attacked no individual in the response to that question. That is simply gratuitous, offensive, wrong and disrespectful.

MS TUCKER: I said attack the timing.

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