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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 05 Hansard (Thursday, 13 May 2004) . . Page.. 1901 ..

name on the sand coloured paper which inserts new clauses 8A, 8B and 8C [see schedule 5 at page 1916] .

This amendment, which is similar to the amendment just defeated, is directed towards facilitating the building of the Gungahlin Drive extension. The effect of this amendment is to allow the Minister for Environment to declare certain licensing decisions of the conservator to be about conduct related to the Gungahlin Drive extension. If the minister makes such a declaration, then the decision will be exempt from appeal to the AAT. Only a decision to grant a licence with conditions to vary a licence would be subject to such a declaration, and it does not interfere with appeal rights against the decision to refuse a licence under the Nature Conservation Act of 1980. This will allow a declaration to be made about licences for the work on the Gungahlin Drive extension.

As I have previously stated in that matter, the environmental issues have been considered and addressed and there is no need for there to be further second-guessing of the decision of the conservator. The conservator has exercised her discretion on licences in relation to licences for the current contractors and has decided that the criteria for grant of the relevant licences have been met. A declaration under these provisions will be made to ensure the AAT appeal against that decision cannot proceed. For future contractors, the conservator will need to be convinced that the grant of a licence is appropriate in accordance with the criteria determined under the act, so the minister will not be able to control whether the licence is issued but only whether it can be subject to appeal.

I certainly commend this amendment to the Assembly. This amendment is Gungahlin Drive extension specific; this amendment will allow the Gungahlin Drive extension to proceed; this amendment does not create some of the concerns that have been addressed by members in the debate on the proposals included on the blue sheet just debated and just defeated.

These new clauses have been crafted as a consequence of comments received by the government from members in relation to their concerns about the amendments that the government has proposed in relation to this issue to allow us to proceed with the construction of the Gungahlin Drive extension; they are narrow; they are specific; they are Gungahlin Drive related; they are a minimalist approach to allow us to achieve a community purpose, a very significant community purpose.

We do not need to go over the debate. I do not believe there is a single, cogent, rational argument that anybody that pretends or purports to support the Gungahlin Drive extension proceeding can utilise against this set of amendments. Any attempt to argue down this particular set of amendments is quite spurious and will lead to a range of other consequences that are far broader, far greater in their consequences for future planning regimes, than the acceptance of this set of amendments.

I think it needs to be said, it needs to be understood, this is the minimalist position. The government is determined to build this road, and we will build it. And if we do have to accept, tomorrow, the legislation introduced by the shadow minister, then we will.

MS DUNDAS (11.11): Mr Speaker, I seek your guidance. Is this amendment actually to or within the scope of the bill? I will put an argument forward. Because it is specific to one particular capital work in the budget, when this is broader environmental amendment

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