Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 1 Hansard (16 February) . . Page.. 173 ..
MR QUINLAN (continuing):
the associated greenhouse credits? Are you aware that the plant would be required to sell its output into the open market, with only a remote chance that we in the ACT would be the ultimate purchaser of that output?
MR SMYTH: Mr Speaker, it is quite clear that natural gas as a source of power generation is far preferable to some of the sources of electricity that we currently have, which include brown coal in Victoria. Unlike Mr Quinlan, I think that if AGL and ACTEW were running the power station we would have more than just a slim chance of purchasing green electricity from that plant. In fact, we would endeavour to purchase all that we could. I am sure that the green electricity that will come from this plant will flow to the ACT and benefits will flow to the people of the ACT as well.
MR QUINLAN: I ask a supplementary question. Could it be, Minister, that after the establishment of such a plant the ACT could well have an increase in its output of pollution by hosting the plant, but receive no credits from its operation because the output was purchased elsewhere?
MR SPEAKER: There are a great many hypotheticals and qualifications in the question. Be aware of them, please, Minister.
MR SMYTH: Mr Quinlan does not understand how the audit is done. You take account of the emissions that are generated for yourself. We do not take account of emissions that are not generated on behalf of the people of the ACT. If we are using electricity here and pollution or greenhouse emissions are associated with it, in both cases we would have that credited to us. If it is not being used here, they are not credited to us. He cannot have it both ways.
This technology is good technology. This is a great opportunity for the people of the ACT. This is the third time these people have now stood in the way of securing the future of ACTEW. As we said this morning when we talked about Mr Kaine's amendment to Mr Stanhope's motion, all they are about is whingeing. There are no positives. There is no looking forward. There is no supporting the future of Canberra. All they want to do is tear it down. We are trying to build it up.
MR KAINE: Mr Speaker, my question, through you, is to the Treasurer. It relates to the performance report for his department, the Department of Treasury and Infrastructure, for the December quarter last year, which was recently tabled. It establishes a mark for reports that are of absolutely no value whatsoever. I do not know who, apart from myself and Mr Rugendyke, might read this report, but if anybody else does they will know that it reveals almost a studied lack of information. According to this report, at output 2.3, the department's taxation research project was 186 per cent above target on a year-to-date basis, because of "the number of applications for tax exemptions for corporate reconstructions". We might reasonably ask: What tax exemptions, for what corporate reconstructions? But of course the report is silent on that matter. That is not my question, however. I note also that appeals and litigations processed against the year-to-date target of five were in fact 14 up to the December quarter, an increase of 180 per cent on the year-to-date target. But this report says that the reduced number
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .