Page 386 - Week 01 - Thursday, 11 December 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Part D of the Territory Plan 2002 sets out definitions for a ‘communications facility’ and a ‘major utility installation’ as per Table 3.2.
She concludes:
… the classification of the data centre as a communications
facility appears more ambiguous.
She lists what the facilities that are expected to go in a communications facility classification are. Mobile phone antenna—it is not that. Satellite or microwave dish—it is not that. Radar equipment—I do not think so. Aviation navigation communication—definitely not. Space tracking facility—I must have missed that one. Telecommunication facility depot—it is not a depot. Television/radio broadcasting facility—it is not doing that. Australia Post facility, depot—it will not be wearing the little red logo. Then there is a telephone exchange or Australia Post exchange. Any reasonable reading of this definition within the territory plan says that a place where you store data is not a communications facility.
The definition of “major utility installation” we probably do not have a problem with because it lists some of those things, but it then says that ACTPLA said you need to look at the national capital plan. The national capital plan defines a communications facility as a facility for the purpose of transmitting airborne signals using radio masts, towers, satellite disks and the like and includes Australia Post and telecommunications facilities and television/radio broadcasting facilities. I am sure members will have read it and I hope the Chief Minister does, because residents—and this is what angered them right from the start—could not see how the definition of the data centre was consistent with a communications facility.
The group Canberrans for Power Station Relocation had to go to the expense of getting their own legal advice, which indicated that the data centre component of the development is not a communications facility within the meaning of the territory plan. And that is the problem we have got here.
Mr Seselja and I had a briefing last week from the head of the Chief Minister’s Department, and I am grateful for that briefing. The comment was made by the head of the Chief Minister’s Department that of course a number of data centres had been approved as telecommunications facilities and some as warehouses. So I said: “Fantastic. That will make life easy. Give us a list. Can we have a list of that?” The reply was, “Of course you can have a list of that.” We had to send a reminder to ask for that list but what we got back was quite interesting, because it details the land use lease purpose classification covering other data centres in the ACT. It does not say that any of them were approved as a communications facility.
We sent another email saying, “Which of these were actually approved as communication facilities?” We are yet to have an answer to that. I would have thought that, if you had examples that went through the process as telecommunications facilities, that data would be reasonably accessible. But we are yet to receive that, and that is unfortunate.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .