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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 05 Hansard (Tuesday, 25 May 2004) . . Page.. 2152 ..

done as part of the Maunsell study was of itself criticised by the government of the day … We believe an appropriate impact statement can be prepared and completed in the context of the timetable which we have committed to. We believe in the timeframe we have accepted, and that we will maintain if elected, we can nevertheless undertake a more satisfactory study.

Given that he is now Chief Minister and Minister for Environment and given that he is now countenancing a bill that absolutely and unequivocally removes any possible requirements for further environmental assessment and potentially takes away any possible appeal in regard to such assessments, where is the full EIS that was promised to conservationists before the election? Surely his responsibility as Minister for Environment should require him to be absolutely assured that no environmental impact concerns remain to be addressed.

It is simply not true to say that the issues raised were not raised before. The only new ones, as I understand it, that the Minister for Environment might argue have come too late for him to ensure that they are properly considered have been the ones raised over the past few months by ANU and CSIRO scientists related to new information, such as the discovery of an endangered species on or near the GDE route, the purple pea, Swainsona recta, and those, without doubt, are environmental impacts that have not been addressed.

In this context, I would like to refer to comments from Dr Joe Baker, the recent Commissioner for the Environment for the ACT. While still Commissioner for the Environment, Dr Baker took on a final task of looking at recent complaints regarding the environmental assessments of the various bits of the Gungahlin Drive extension. In an email to people who had sent him complaints, he made these points:

I did say that the work done by Environment ACT was quite extensive, and the term “Preliminary Assessment” was, in my opinion, misleading, because the Environment ACT people, and their consultant or consultants, had done a lot of work.

[In response to the question] “was it as good as an EIS or an EIA?” I said “no, but it is on the way to one.”

I have considered each complaint, and each piece of information received. I have met with representatives of Environment ACT. My assessment takes into account the definition of the “Environment” in ACT Legislation—

I have already reminded members of that in this debate—

My process has included: validity of claims made; the “balance” and “consistency” of material submitted; gaps in information available; evidence of studies already conducted; consideration of the particular areas to be impacted by the GDE.

I retain the belief that great benefit would come from an open meeting, with independent Chairperson, and agreed agenda, to identify what has already been done to understand the impacts of the proposed GDE and what needs to be done, to allow a comprehensive assessment of the environmental impact of any such extension, both now and in the future.

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