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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 8 Hansard (28 August) . . Page.. 2655 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

Let me say that Dr Sargent is somebody I have admired for a long time. Dr Sargent is somebody who I think is incredibly efficient, who I think has done great things with ACTEW. I do not want that to be misunderstood. Not only has he done great things with ACTEW; I think he has done many positive things for the way ACTEW deals with the environment. The way he has dealt with water going into the Murray-Darling river system at the Lower Molonglo water treatment works is one of those. Environmental housing that works is another, as is the grey water system. There is a whole range of ways in which he has made positive contributions to the environment. Nobody is debating that.

Nor are we debating a question of privilege. Indeed, Ms Tucker knows that she can come in here and she can pan Dr Sargent as much as she wants, if she so chooses. I support her right to do that. I will also stand up and defend Dr Sargent in the manner I have just done because he is a person whom I have admired, but in this case I think he is terribly wrong. The reason that he is terribly wrong is that Ms Tucker raised a reasonable issue about ACTEW Corporation - not about Dr Sargent; about ACTEW Corporation. She said, if I can paraphrase it, that this agreement with Yallourn will mean a problem in terms of greenhouse effect. I think that is a valid statement. I do not mind if Mr Kaine argues against it. That is fine. It is a valid statement, as far as I am concerned, having listened to both sides of this argument. ACTEW said in their press release of the time:

This arrangement brings significant benefits to Victoria and the ACT, and is a sign that the National Electricity Market is beginning to function on a national basis. The result will be a significantly enhanced energy market for Yallourn ...

The head of Yallourn was reported in the Latrobe Valley Express on 30 June as saying:

It comes at the year end, when the whole of the Yallourn Energy workforce has made a considerable effort to ensure that Yallourn is able to withstand a severely depressed marketplace.

This deal brings us a high degree of security over the next three years.

Maybe without that degree of security other non-brown coal electricity generators would have overrun Yallourn and Yallourn may have in fact folded. From the perspective of greenhouse, that may well have been a very good thing, had they not had ACTEW providing the security. In the long term, providing the security may mean that Yallourn is able to operate, instead of over the next 20 years, over the next 30 years, putting more greenhouse gases into the environment. I can see Mr Kaine busting to be able to argue against that. Indeed, he may well be able to. But it is a perfectly reasonable and rational thing to say. Let us debate that, and, if we draw the conclusion that it is the case that there will be more greenhouse gases going into the environment, then ACTEW is not acting within its requirements under its legislation. That is the issue that Ms Tucker was raising, and it is a valid point. It is arguable, but it is certainly valid to raise it.

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