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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 4 Hansard (27 March) . . Page.. 928 ..

10. Why has the Committee counted some group submissions and/or form letters as representing groups (and thus not counted), while others were taken as representing individuals (and thus were counted) in a biased way that favoured the government's preferences. An example of this was early in the inquiry STR presented a submission with several hundred signatures clearly supporting the western option and opposing the eastern option. This was briefly mentioned in the introduction as a 'petition' along with 5 others with a total of nearly 1800 signatures. This submission was presented by myself and clearly specified it as a submission to the inquiry, not as a petition to the Legislative Assembly. Yet no mention of the wishes of the signatories has been made and none of them are tallied in the final analysis of preferences. In contrast several hundred form letters supporting the Gungahlin Community Council's view have been counted as separate submissions expressing explicit support for the eastern option. Attachment B contains more details on this.

In summary, this Committee Report sets an alarmingly low standard for Committees in the ACT and shows a disregard for democratic process and public consultation. It's shortcomings are highlighted when it is considered that less than 20 pages specifically refer to new evidence that was presented to the Inquiry in over 900 submissions, 6 days of public hearings over nearly two years.

Greg Tanner

Chair Save the Ridge

ATTACHMENT A TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS FRIDAY, 5 MAY 2000

The Table at the rear of the Committee Report erroneously records Save the Ridge (page 174) with

  • a question mark in the column headed "For GDE" and

  • "Not East" in the column headed "East or West Route".

The following evidence from transcripts of the public hearing presentation by Save the Ridge, clearly indicates that Save the Ridge supported the West alignment for GDE and that we have been seriously misrepresented in the Committee Report.

Dr G Tanner and others page 134:

"Our constituency is broad based, with over 1,000 financial members and supporters from 61 per cent of all Canberra suburbs, including the inner north, Gungahlin, Belconnen, inner south, Woden, Weston and Tuggeranong, as well as other surrounding districts. We have submitted a petition containing over 2,000 signatures to this committee objecting to the government's eastern option and supporting the community option of the western alignment."

Dr G Tanner and others page 135:

"Save the Ridge, on behalf of thousands of ordinary Canberrans, strongly opposes the proposed eastern extension of Gungahlin Drive through the Bruce/O'Connor Ridge. The community option, or the western alignment, provides an acceptable, far less destructive alternative."

The following are quotes from pages 151 and 152 following questions by Committee member, Mr Simon Corbell:

MR CORBELL: Could I ask a question about the community option? I understand that it is the Save the Ridge's position that the community option should be the preferred road reservation for an arterial road from Glenloch Interchange to the existing section of Gungahlin Drive.

Dr Tanner: That is right.

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