Page 1906 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 25 June 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
However, in the estimates committee hearing on 16 June, the Managing Director of Actew explained that this note was incorrect and that, in fact, the LDA had merely advised ActewAGL that the site was no longer available on the same terms as in 2002. I know that the Leader of the Opposition disputes that, and I understand the basis of his scepticism. In fairness to the opposition, there is certainly some internal material that has come out of this process with statements that warrant his suspicion and further questioning. I have taken these matters up with the government and with ActewAGL, and, in the main, I am satisfied that the statements in these internal documents are either incorrect or are superseded by later decisions.
In any case it is clear from the testimony of the executives concerned and from their written correspondence that the statements and internal documents on which the opposition rely did not reflect the views of the Chief Minister or of ActewAGL. I have some sympathy for the opposition’s first contention in their motion because I think the Chief Minister should have been more forthright to the estimates committee about the views of the LDA and the internal process that was going on during negotiations with ActewAGL.
It appears to me that the Chief Minister’s initial remarks in the estimates committee did not go into sufficient detail on the process and the LDA’s position at various stages in the process. However, this testimony, of itself, is insufficient to warrant a no-confidence finding. The opposition have made it clear to me in their discussions that they do not rely on this single point; rather, that it is merely one of the complaints which they are making.
Paragraph 3 of the motion asserts that the Chief Minister selectively released materials to the media which were withheld from the Assembly, and I took this issue up in the estimates process. In particular, the government withheld documents under FOI request or some documents which the Chief Minister later gave to the media to support his version of events.
I understand the Chief Minister has taken the position that he was not involved in the FOI process, and he has reiterated that today, and that he later took the legitimate decision to release documents that he did not have to release under FOI. Presuming that the documents denied in the request were denied on legitimate grounds, this is compliant with the letter of the law regarding FOI requests. However, I find this something of a cheeky approach and I think that it leaves little room for the Chief Minister to complain about the adverse media comment he received on the issue. Again, I would have preferred to see the government be more up-front on this aspect of the whole debate.
Paragraphs 2 and 4 of the motion assert that the Chief Minister mismanaged the process associated with the data centre and failed to properly consider its impact on residents. I will not speak long on this particular point, except to say that I am of the view that it is incumbent on the government to use the statutory procedures for development application and approval that are set out in ACT law. For that reason, whilst I am on the record as saying I could see a case for some censure, the grounds on which Dr Foskey is relying in relation to the EIS I do not think are appropriate.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .