Page 1897 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 25 June 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
territory-owned corporation. I do not think that territory residents are well served by this hands-off attitude.
Shortly I will go through many of the issues of concern to me in relation to the government’s actions, or failure to act properly, but first I would like to reflect upon the nature of no-confidence motions in this Assembly. There have been three of these in the nearly four years of my incumbency, and I have supported one of them. It is sobering to reflect that with a majority government even the most recalcitrant Chief Minister will feel nothing more than a slap from a feather from this no-confidence motion unless one of the ALP members votes in favour of it, and that is an unlikely prospect.
That is a crying shame because, annoying though this no-confidence motion is, this is a discussion we had to have. Estimates committee hearings, answers to questions without notice, answers to questions on notice—these did not provide the required opportunities for debate. Indeed, the lack of opportunity even for questions at the second estimates hearing might be one reason why the opposition felt that the light afforded by a no-confidence motion was needed.
My staff and I have certainly benefited from the respectful attention given to our inquiries and concerns by the government and ActewAGL as the sword of a no-confidence motion—even one the government is sure to win—hangs over them. But all this effort will be to no avail if the government does not admit its short-fallings through this process and if ActewAGL does not learn that it is not the concerned community that is the problem; it is their concerns that are the problem. Reducing the size of the data centre and gas-fired power plant may be an elegant solution from a business perspective, but we still have no environmental impact statement, and only recently has a health impact statement been announced. I note from the guidelines for health impact assessments that they usually accompany an environmental impact statement. We are still missing it.
It is a pity that the nature of this exercise means that Mr Stanhope is unlikely to admit any mistakes or negligence on the part of his government—we have just heard that—and that the motion will not be passed. It is a pity that the government did not support my motion back in May. Acting upon that could have averted this motion. Nonetheless, it is my sincere hope that advisers will have made notes and that there is better documentation on the next such proposal and more transparency and fewer claims of cabinet or commercial in confidence.
I will now address the motion. I go to the first part. What we in my office think that we understand from the FOI documents given to me by the opposition and government is that ActewAGL and all wanted to put the power station and data centre on block 7, 21, in Hume. There was clearly some reluctance from some parts of the government to hand that first block over as it had been prepared as smaller industrial blocks as part of the government land release program. Another block was suggested, but delays regarding heritage objects were cited. After several months of argy-bargy, a third—broadacre—block was identified. We are advised by ActewAGL that, after initially being rejected, it was reconsidered on the basis of being subdivided to specifically cater for the data centre’s requirements, and it was then quickly locked onto.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .