Page 2294 - Week 06 - Friday, 27 June 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
projects should proceed. Community interest is central to that. That is why planning systems exist—to balance the impact of uses against other land uses and, most importantly in the context of the human environment, human health and human amenity. Those are the issues that will all be brought to play through the statutory planning process.
I find it remarkable that someone like Mr Pratt would believe that he understands the potential impacts or otherwise of projects ahead of the assessment process. He does not seem to understand that there are people with a great deal more knowledge, understanding and expertise in the assessment of impacts than he has. Perhaps, if he has any confidence in and any respect for a statutory planning process where impacts are properly assessed and considered, he should take a second look at his actions. But, no, instead we hear: “We will chain ourselves to the bulldozers.” That is the Liberal Party’s position on this matter—chain yourself to the bulldozer; do not think about the issues; do not think about the analysis that has to occur; do not think about the investigations; do not think about the fact that it is assessed by an independent statutory authority; do not think about any of those things, just get some short-term political gain. Their position is hypocritical, and they will stand condemned for it.
MR PRATT (Brindabella) (8.07): Mr Speaker, we have just heard from the ex-Minister for Planning. His full arrogance was exercised, and that reflects the arrogant steamrolling of the community by the Stanhope government. They just shunt things over the community entirely. I remind Mr Corbell and his colleagues of a couple of fundamental points. The fundamental question is this: did ACTPLA and the LDA not get the idea that a 210 megawatt power station 600 metres from Macarthur would have a hell of an environmental impact? Did they blindly accept the much-flawed plume study undertaken by the proponents? By the way, I understand—please disprove me if I am wrong—that the plume study undertaken by a South Australian company, which may have an interest in the outcome of this project in any case, was undertaken against 255 microparts per metric tonne of nitrous oxide, which is one half of one per cent beneath the national standard for a nitrous oxide emission output. It was undertaken against one hour of air samples and was tested at the airport and not at Macarthur.
Mrs Dunne: Using Wagga temperatures.
MR PRATT: That is right, Mrs Dunne. It used Wagga Wagga temperatures, and it was not cycle tested with samples taken over 24 hours. Not only that, but there was not even a series of 24-hour cycles tested over the seasonal profiles that impact in this area. Mr Corbell, do not damn well talk to me about what I may or may not know about environmental impacts. If you knew more than I did, you might have talked about these particular issues, but I have not heard a peep out of you.
Mr Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the proponents were allowed to bring a flawed plume study to the table for consideration when the LDA and ACTPLA offered sites to ActewAGL, the consortium, CTC, CBRE and all the other players. If anybody had been on their toes and on their game, they would have understood that that particular study was far from adequate. There was never an intention to run an EIS on this particular project, unless, of course, the government had been pushed to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .