Page 2271 - Week 06 - Friday, 27 June 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
area allow for a substantial number of applications to exceed the time frame set by statute seems to me to be something that should register great alarm.
There was a caller on the radio the other day—I cannot remember the program; I think it was on the 666 Alex Sloan program—who joked that his development application had been delayed so much that it was being pursued as an exhibit by the Canberra museum. I mention this because without clear performance indicators on these issues one is often forced to rely on anecdotal evidence from constituents, and it still seems to be forthcoming in substantial amounts.
I am not one who likes to rely on anecdotal evidence, so I am glad to see that we will soon have some quantitative estimate of the level of satisfaction with ACTPLA. These kinds of indicators are often fairly subjective since they rely on subjective notions of satisfaction. Nevertheless, I think it is preferable to have some quantitative assessment of satisfaction to avoid having to rely on radio anecdotes.
Since the gas-fired power station proposed for development near Macarthur has been such a controversial topic, I will take this opportunity to reiterate my view that the government should—indeed, it is obligated—to allow the normal statutory processes to proceed with regard to this development, as it has now been amended. There has been a lot of controversy in the past few past weeks, culminating in the motion of no confidence and in-depth arguments surrounding this particular project. I hope that members in this place are able to appreciate that this project is currently being assessed under the planning laws passed in the Assembly and that this assessment will involve assessment of environmental issues, including issues of potential noise pollution.
I have stated several times that I believe this project should be approved only if it meets the noise and pollution requirements of the territory to ensure that Macarthur residents and other ACT residents are not disturbed by the plant. If this is the case I have no in-principle problem with the development. However, if it is not compliant then it must be rejected by ACTPLA. I do not have any view on whether or not the proposed project is compliant with noise and pollution requirements. I have been assured by ActewAGL that it is, but I have no expertise to assess these claims myself. Like others, I rely on the claims of experts and I think that any competing claims about noise and pollution issues need to be tested in the assessment of the development application.
Whilst I agree with the opposition on some aspects of their criticism over this issue, I am certainly uncomfortable with the opposition’s approach to the assessment of the development, which seems to me to encourage greater political interference in assessments of development projects and seems to fuel an anti-business sentiment, and I think Dr Foskey’s pleadings for intervention are very much down the same road.
If we have a situation where every time somebody sets foot into this territory with a business development and says, “We want ministers stepping in, rearranging and reordering the process,” we will very quickly find ourselves moving into the scenario that New South Wales now faces. We have seen where that has led, with corruption at local government level and investigations by the Independent Commission Against
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .