Page 2375 - Week 06 - Friday, 27 June 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Let us look at ActewAGL and these notifications. What agency in their right mind would put out public notifications and talk in general terms about “a project at Hume” and not be specific about it? Did they arrogantly think they could ram this beneath the radar and shove it through? They certainly did.
Where was the prior community consultation? We have heard Mr Barr ad nauseam in the last couple of weeks saying: “Oh well, it’s okay. ACTPLA and the normal planning processes allow these sorts of decisions to be made without too much consultation, communication, formal notification or public information being put out, and then we can start talking about it.” But isn’t it a bit damn late? The consortium have been led up the garden path and they have made commercial decisions against what they clearly saw as a narrow window of opportunity. And you then say, “Oh hang on, gee, will this stand up to an EIS?” So we have this hornet’s nest that they have stirred up.
This has been poorly managed from whoa to go. With respect to the arrogance of Actew, the response to the community concerned has been outrageous. The patronising way in which ActewAGL officials spoke to the community meeting on 28 April was rather breathtaking. Of course, ActewAGL have thrust their so-called EIS down all of our throats. They told the community on 28 April—and Mick, they told you—that they had undertaken—
Mrs Dunne: What about the comrades?
MR PRATT: That is a case of the old “comrades over constituents”. COC—the new acronym. That is the new acronym for the Labor members for Brindabella regarding how they connect and engage with their constituents: comrades first; keep the constituents in the dark. That is what we have seen from the other side of the chamber, haven’t we, Mr Gentleman?
With respect to ActewAGL’s plume test, initially it sounded pretty convincing: “We’ve done this impact study, it’s going to be fine. Oh by the way, the noise pollution variables are six out of seven but we’re not going to build a buffer wall. We’re going to save money. All right, okay, if you kick us hard enough, perhaps we’ll think about building a buffer wall.” This whole thing has been rather sloppy. It can be understood why the community have been so suspicious about this whole process. Of course, with the plume study, it was not the government that found that Actew’s plume study might have been faulty; it was members of the community. Some canny men and women in the residents team found that ActewAGL’s plume study was a study taken of the air quality of the nitrous oxide emissions measured over one hour at the airport, not measured at Macarthur, and only for one hour, not through a 24-hour cycle; and measured only against one seasonal, all-weather condition. No modelling was undertaken.
Mrs Dunne: In Wagga.
MR PRATT: That is it: against temperatures in Wagga, which is perhaps 1,500 feet in altitude lower. That is quite significant in these sorts of environmental impact tests.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .