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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 6 Hansard (15 June) . . Page.. 1844 ..

MR HIRD (continuing):

the Ridge. This correspondence made serious allegations about the quality of the committee's report on the Gungahlin Drive extension.

The member who asked the question tabled correspondence from Save the Ridge, and asked me whether the committee would respond to the 10 specific questions posed by Save the Ridge. I stated that the committee had not yet considered the correspondence but would do so in the near future. The committee has now deliberated on the correspondence and sent off a detailed reply to Save the Ridge. Our reply addresses each of the matters raised by the organisation. The committee's response is thorough and respectful.

Members will see that the committee rejects criticism made by Save the Ridge. In view of members' interest in this matter, I seek leave to table the committee's response, together with two maps, and ask that the response be incorporated in Hansard. That will ensure that future readers of Hansard will have the opportunity to see the committee's response to the letter from Save the Ridge.

Leave granted.

The response read as follows:

Mr Greg Tanner

Chair

'Save the Ridge'

PO Box 204

O'CONNOR ACT 2602

Dear Mr Tanner

On behalf of the Standing Committee on Planning and Urban Services, I acknowledge receipt of your correspondence dated 21/03/01-which has been discussed by members who have cleared this response to the matters you have raised.

Your correspondence deals with this committee's Report No 67 Proposals for the Gungahlin Drive Extension (John Dedman Parkway). Specifically, Save the Ridge states that the report is 'biased, has ignored significant new evidence.... and has misrepresented the views of Save the Ridge and a large majority of the community who made submission to the inquiry'. Further, Save the Ridge states that the report 'sets an alarmingly low standard for committees in the ACT and shows a disregard for democratic process and public consultation'.

The committee rejects these claims.

The committee responds as follows to the ten specific points listed in your correspondence.

Point 1

    Save the Ridge claims that the committee completely ignored 'evidence of Environment ACT's criticism of the adequacy of the PA'.

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