Page 1484 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 7 May 2008

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

That this Assembly calls on the ACT Government to ensure development of ActewAGL’s proposed gas-fired power station is put on hold until:

(1) there has been:

(a) a full environmental impact analysis consistent with the new planning regime, which includes:

(i) a comprehensive air quality analysis;

(ii) a rigorous examination of potential noise impact; and

(iii) a public investigation into the relative merits of all possible locations;

(b) an independent report on its health impact;

(d) consideration of the social implications of ACT Planning and Land Authority’s Industrial Corridor;

(2) all such reports are released publicly; and

(3) a comprehensive and respectful community engagement process has been conducted.

This motion is self explanatory. There is a wide ranging concern amongst residents of Macarthur and Fadden and nearby suburbs that the impact of the proposed gas-fired power station has been underestimated or kept hidden. This is a project that certainly seems to be moving quickly. Although on the drawing board since 2002, an announcement about its imminence was tied to an announcement about a data centre envisaged for Canberra.

A data centre requires a lot of electricity. A data centre is also a very large building with an enormous roof area. Appropriately designed, it could mount a very extensive solar array, and when we spoke about the project last year with ActewAGL officers, there was a high degree of excitement about this potential. Now we see that the only option being considered is a gas-powered one.

Construction is expected to begin in the middle of this year. Information to the community about the project has been extremely poor. Documentation available on the ACTPLA website relating to the development application itself is poorly labelled and difficult to navigate, although the preliminary assessment documentation is more comprehensive. There is quite detailed analysis of the various impacts of the proposed development, but again some of this is cursory or indeed questionable.

I think that this is another one of those development proposals that the proponents and ACTPLA could and should have known would be provocative or distressing to many residents. But no proactive engagement strategy seems to have been pursued. Is it the more impact, the less they want the public involved? One wonders.

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