Page 1440 - Week 04 - Thursday, 26 March 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
on all elements of the proposal. There are a number of issues that have been brought to my attention that require thorough assessment. It is important that in choosing the route of the pipeline that Actew takes the path with best environmental outcomes and not just the path of least cost. Impacts will need to be assessed at both Angle Crossing, where the water is to removed from the Murrumbidgee, through to Burra Creek, where Actew plans to deposit large amounts of water potentially changing the nature and health of the creek.
The Greens are also concerned that the leaseholders on whose land Actew plans to run the pipeline are treated fairly and with respect. The laying of the pipeline across these lands will prevent the leaseholders from engaging in a number of activities, including ploughing, cropping and building any structures amongst many other conditions. We would call on Actew to engage frankly with leaseholders to fully explain the implications of the pipeline running through their land and to attempt to mitigate unwanted impacts as best as possible. Already leaseholders in the Williamsdale area are reporting a somewhat heavy-handed approach by Actew as regards gaining access to the area to carry out surveying and testing.
I also note that there are significant woodlands, grassy woodland areas, in that part of the ACT where the pipeline may go through. I also call on Actew to do its best to avoid impacting on those grassy woodlands. We know that they are a vulnerable ecosystem in the ACT and efforts should be made, as I said earlier, not just to do it the cheapest and easiest way but to be mindful of Actew’s broader environmental responsibilities in routing that pipeline in a way that has the least environmental impact.
It is also important to mention the elephant in the room in this debate and that is that Actew has recently purchased land at Williamsdale, very near to where the pipeline easement will be developed. It begs the question as to how much the pipeline infrastructure, along with the building of a new substation and transmission lines, will support and potentially then justify the development of a gas-fired power station in the ACT. We can see how this story is going to roll out: the infrastructure is here; we must build the power station at this location.
The development of a 500-megawatt gas-fired power station was mooted in a Canberra Times article in January this year. Frankly, anyone who has been in Canberra for long enough will know that Actew has been aspiring to this project for a great number of years. It certainly is a large chunk of land that Actew has bought, somewhat larger than will be required for the substation proposal, and Actew has not yet ruled out the whole idea.
Of course, the notion that the ACT government would in any way condone the building of a 500-megawatt power station to run on fossil fuel sources surely is a ludicrous one. I look forward to the ACT government stating its opposition to this project at the earliest possible opportunity. Certainly, we do not want a power station that would generate more power than the ACT would need and one that would lock us into a fossil fuel energy future for decades to come. Sometimes I wonder if policy makers are confused about the greenhouse gas impacts of gas when I see the veiled acceptance of such a development for the ACT.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .