Page 388 - Week 01 - Thursday, 11 December 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR STANHOPE: Yes, I did. I said that. This is an entirely academic discussion. I am more than happy to have it, just to put in some context here what it is that we are debating.
It is the government’s view, accepting that there is a contrary view, that a data centre is a communications facility. In the context of the current site and this legislation, the point is irrelevant. That is why the government have agreed to support the Leader of the Opposition’s amendment, because in the context of the legislation we are debating today it does not need to be included. That is why I said earlier, in closing the debate at the in-principle stage, that the government’s willingness to agree to the amendment which the Leader of the Opposition proposes is that, to all intents and purposes, it is irrelevant to the end that we are seeking to achieve today.
I went on to explain why it was that we included it in the first place, which was to express the government’s view that a data centre fell within the definition of a communication facility. That is our view. It remains our view. But we are happy to enter into this debate in the context of a change to the territory plan.
Including clause 9 in this piece of legislation was done in the knowledge that it would have no effect or impact. I just want to make the point—I understand people’s concerns—that the inclusion of a definition of communication facility in a specific piece of legislation that is project specific and site specific and has a 12-month sunset clause will not affect in any way the definition of communication facility as it applies to broadacre. But we are happy to engage in that debate in a broad way. In fact, I think perhaps it is a very good, reasonable reference for us to make to the planning committee first up. Let us have a full robust inquiry into some of these issues.
I just wanted to explain the government’s position in relation to this. We believe it is a communication facility. That is ACTPLA’s view. That is the government’s view. We accept there are other views and we are happy now to proceed to settle the matter once and for all. That was the rationale and the basis on which we proceeded in relation to this issue. I will conclude my remarks on that point. The government is happy to support this proposed amendment.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (5.37): In accordance with standing order 213, I move:
That the document quoted from by Mr Stanhope (Chief Minister) be presented to the Assembly.
Mr Stanhope: They were personal notes for my information, Mr Speaker.
MRS DUNNE: It looks like an email to me.
MR SPEAKER: Sorry, Mr Stanhope, I did not hear you.
Mr Stanhope: I said the notes that I referred to were personal notes provided for my information and I have no intention of tabling them.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .