Page 1470 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 7 May 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
equally suitable, at least in principle, as a site for this important project. Moreover, this second site is in a designated industrial area that is conveniently located near services such as high-tension transmission lines, gas, water and transport. And it is not so close to residential areas; indeed, it is more than two kilometres from the nearest residential areas.
The specific issue that my bill deals with is assessing the suitability of this second site for the data centre—with, if it proceeds as part of the overall project, a power generation plant. This bill sets out a process by which this project—a project that we should all acknowledge is of particular importance to the long-term future of the ACT—can actually be developed in the ACT.
At this point, I should note that, contrary to the absurd statement by the Minister for Planning on ABC radio last week, the Liberal Party strongly support this project—and we always have. It is typical of the minister that he creates a problem and then blames somebody else for the ineptitude of his planning process. This is just the type of project that we should be encouraging in the ACT. I had a report done by a consultant last year that listed things like data centres as something suitable for the ACT.
That is why I and my colleagues have been working so assiduously to make sure that this project is located on the optimum site. The purpose of this bill is to put in place a process that will ensure, in relation to much of the assessment and evaluation work that has already been undertaken for the site in Tuggeranong, that that work can be carried over to the new site where it is relevant to the new site. That will ensure that, in the case of projects that have critical time limits based on decisions to proceed or not to proceed, the necessary assessments and evaluation activities can be expedited.
Yes, this bill does need a truncated process in the planning regime. The target of this bill is very limited. As I note in the bill, it will be used only in exceptional circumstances. Indeed, if it is the will of the Assembly, I am not opposed to a sunset clause being placed in the bill. The bill is focused on a very small number of major investments that can be characterised as being economically important for the territory but for which a significant issue has arisen over the site for the project.
This bill is being proposed to deal with exceptional circumstances related to a small number of major investments. Firstly, any proposal to change the site of a project must be genuine. There is no intention for this bill to permit vexatious or otherwise inappropriate proposals for changing a site. Secondly, there will be a combination of checks and balances incorporated into the process of approving a second site. These will involve the prima facie approval by each of the three statutory commissioners within the territory—the prices commissioner, the Human Rights Commissioner and the commissioner for the environment—of the proposal for the second site. And it will require a decision by at least two-thirds of the Legislative Assembly for agreement to a project moving to a second site.
These are appropriate safeguards that balance the commercial imperatives for minimising delay in approving and developing major projects with the need to satisfy environmental and other factors related both to the project and to the proposed site for the project. In particular, I want the role of the Assembly in this process to be one of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .