Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2008 Week 5 Hansard (7 May) . . Page.. 1492..
MR BARR (continuing):
I acknowledge the concerns that have been raised about the specific site. Certainly I think it would be worth while, given that another potential site appears to be available now, that that be given full consideration as well because this project is very important to the territory. I thank Dr Foskey for raising the issue. I thank Mr Smyth for his comments earlier today. We look forward to a constructive debate and, I hope, a positive outcome for the territory in that this project can be delivered, but delivered in a manner that is acceptable to the Canberra community.
MR PRATT (Brindabella) (12.07): I stand here this morning to speak to Dr Foskey's motion. I think this is quite a laudable motion which certainly addresses a very, very significant community issue. But whilst I think her motion is laudable, I do not think it goes far enough. I do not believe it addresses adequately the central concern that the proposed gas-powered station and the data facility will very likely impact on Macarthur and surrounding suburbs and, therefore, the siting of the power station and the data facility should not be allowed in Macarthur. That, I think, ought to be the central concern here, and I would have liked to have seen Dr Foskey's motion enshrine that particular principle.
Meanwhile, Mr Barr has put up an amendment, but really Mr Barr's amendment simply enshrines the unacceptable state of play on this particular matter. Mr Barr's amendment simply enshrines the inadequate planning—in fact, the poor planning. Mr Barr's amendment simply enshrines the inadequate prior consultation that we have seen in this particular matter. As a consequence, I seek to amend Mr Barr's amendment. I am quite happy to move my amendment now. I move:
"(1) ActewAGL's proposed gas fired power station and data storage facility is not built on the currently proposed site;
(2) ActewAGL's proposed gas fired power station and data storage facility is not approved until the required planning and environmental studies have been completed and adequately communicated to the community before any approval process occurs;
(3) the Projects of Territory Importance Bill 2008 is supported;
and notes that the development application objection process was not extended beyond 5 May 2008.".