Page 2552 - Week 08 - Thursday, 14 August 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
hosting these facilities, because they see it as a reliable income stream that protects them from the vagaries of climate and the seasons, that protects them when they do not have revenue because of downturn in production due to drought or other factors. They see it as security.
That is why they support these projects. That is why we see farmers around the ACT wanting to have these facilities on their land. And they are entitled to put forward these proposals, because their land is able to be used for these facilities, subject, of course, to the assessment processes set out in the territory plan and the Planning and Development Act.
That is something that should not be understated as well. Helping our rural producers have a sustainable long-term future, and the maintenance of those agricultural landscapes as a whole, includes the ability to be able to farm sunlight and wind. That is just as important as being able to farm the soil, and it should be thought about in that context as well.
It is worth making those points in this debate. Certainly, everyone is closely watching the assessment in relation to this proposal. It will be subject, I am sure, to a very rigorous and considered assessment, and it will need to clear those hurdles if it is to proceed. As to whether or not it proceeds, we will have to wait and see the outcome of that process. But the type of language and the type of assertions we have heard lately fail to appreciate the significance and importance of large-scale renewable energy proposals like this in the context of our future as a community and as a nation. It is about whether or not we are truly able to make the transition to a more sustainable future for ourselves and our children.
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
Environment and Sustainable Development Directorate—Schedule 1, Part 1.11—$735,000 (net cost of outputs), totalling $735,000.
MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (10.42): This is part of the directorate that was funded from 1 July to 6 July, as part of the changes to the administrative arrangements. We will support it.
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
Exhibition Park Corporation—
Schedule 1, Part 1.12—$20,000 (net cost of outputs), totalling $20,000.
Schedule 1A, Part 1.12—$425,000 (net cost of outputs), $552,000 (capital injection), totalling $977,000.
MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (10.42): Madam Speaker, Exhibition Park is always one of the highlights of the estimates process for me because I get to ask the question that I think I have now asked for eight continuous estimates: when will the master plan be finished? I now see that, under the 2014-15 priorities, one of the things to do is to finish the corporation’s master plan. But it cannot be done now because they are monitoring external studies such as the government’s review of the feasibility of the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video