“Surely, for a project like that of the extension of light rail to Woden, the public has the right to hear from a truly independent expert about the extensive impact this project has upon their life,” writes BEATRICE BODART-BAILEY.

My article, “‘Independent’ tram team ignores the benefits of buses” (CN September 4), revealed the lack of an independent review of  the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the light rail extension to Woden.

In trying to locate the prescribed independent review, the Statutory Planning section of the ACT government said that the Draft EIS (bearing the name of a company that had received a $93 million design contract for stage 2 of the light rail extension to Woden) was in fact the independent review I was looking for, since it was authored by independent experts listed in Appendix G.

An internet search revealed that 20 of the 25-member team were present or past employees of the above company, in whose name the document was published, and hence in no way “independent”. 

I went back with the simple question whether Planning was aware of this fact. After a week I received a response, politely apologising for the delay, explaining: “The intention behind requiring an independent consultant is to address instances where a proponent chooses to prepare an Environment Impacts [sic] Statement (EIS) themselves. In these instances, we would require an independent person to verify the outcomes.

“In accordance with section 110(2)(a) of the Planning Act 2023 (the Act), the Territory Panning [sic] Authority (TPA) may, in the scoping document for a development proposal, require the proponent to engage a consultant to help prepare an EIS for the proposal. In this section of the Act, a consultant means a person who satisfies the criteria prescribed by regulation.

“Section 17 of the Planning (General) Regulation 2023 defines the definition of consultant relevant to section 110 of the Act, which states: ‘The criteria are that the territory planning authority is satisfied the person holds relevant professional qualifications in relation to preparing an EIS and has— (a) experience in preparing an EIS; or (b) the capacity to prepare an EIS.’” 

In other words, the last paragraph claims that a regulation of 2023 only requires that they, the planning authority, are satisfied that consultants hold suitable professional credentials. No doubt it was hoped that this would answer my question.

However, the scoping document makes reference not just to consultants but emphasises the need for an “independent consultant” and an “independent review”.

Consequently, the present Draft EIS, arranged by a financially conflicted company that got together a team consisting mainly of present and past employees, in no way fits the bill.

Surely, for a project with the magnitude like that of the extension of the light rail to Woden, the public has the right to hear from a truly independent expert about the extensive impact this project has upon their life. 

How can anybody suggest that a team can be called independent where at least 20 out of 25 members are present or past employees of a company that will incur a substantial financial loss if the impact statement were to show that a different kind of public transport would be of greater benefit and cause less destruction of the iconic environment for which our Bush Capital is famous?

Further, the argument that an earlier document defining the nature of a consultant merely as “(a) experience in preparing an EIS; or (b) the capacity to prepare an EIS” nullifies the express demand of the scoping document in question for an “independent reviewer” lacks logic in the common sense of the word.

The skill of replying to an uncomfortable question with a plethora of words that skirt the issue, no doubt public servants have to acquire when representing politicians who mostly excel in this art. 

However, just two days before I received the unsatisfactory reply, our valiant Treasurer Chris Steel was caught out, according to the Assembly minutes, when he attempted to rid himself of an uncomfortable question with this trick.

He was dressed down like a delinquent schoolboy by his teacher when the Assembly’s Speaker, Mark Parton, “pursuant to standing order 118AA(a), determined that an answer to a question without notice from Mr Cocks to Mr Steel (Treasurer) was not responsive to the question, and directed the Treasurer to provide a written response to the question and lodge it with the Clerk by 1.45 pm the next business day.” 

Long live standing order 118AA(a)!

Historian Beatrice Bodart-Bailey is an honorary professor at the ANU School of Culture, History and Language.

‘Independent’ tram team ignores the benefits of buses