Page 1561 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 7 May 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
be sited at Macarthur. I take this opportunity to put on the record my admiration for a number of residents who have been very active in this matter. I refer to Rodahn Gibbon, Jane Hedges and Jan Curtis. Jan Curtis, by the way, has been a tireless champion of Macarthur. She has represented the Telstra tower issue over a very long period of time. I refer also to Mr Cubbage and his wife Anna, and Mr and Mrs Small, to name just a few. I do not have the time now to name everybody who has been active. I have heard them; I have listened to what they have had to say.
I do not really need to refer again to the depth of the concern felt by these people about the very likely impacts. I covered that in detail today. I have described their presentation at the meeting of the Tuggeranong Community Council. I have described the depth of their concern shown in the demonstration on Saturday morning at Chisholm shops, so I will not go through that again. But I do have to put on the record again the concerns about the likely impact of such a plant located 600 metres from Macarthur.
The gas-fired turbine power plant and the data centre would put down a footprint of about 600 metres by 400 metres. To put that into perspective, that would cover half of the territory between Long Gully Road and the north-east extremity of Macarthur suburb—so halfway across. That would be 600 metres from the north-eastern extremity of the suburb of Macarthur. It will have between nine and 12 stacks emitting hydrocarbons and other bits and pieces, which can be dangerous if the work has not been done properly in this particular case. I am not saying it has not been, but nobody knows for sure because nobody has presented the facts. Those stacks are 36 metres high. That begs the question regarding visibility pollution.
It is sad that ActewAGL, in their presentation last week, said they would not be wanting to build a large noise pollution fence. That is another issue that is of concern. There is, of course, the visibility issue: in this broad-acre stretch of countryside, such a massive project would dominate the landscape.
I was very unimpressed to hear today that the two crossbenchers, Dr Foskey and Mr Mulcahy, are very equivocal about the issue of the siting of this plant. I was pleased to hear Mr Mulcahy and Dr Foskey both express concerns about the planning processes. I think Mr Mulcahy did express that there ought at least to be a look at resiting this. But he was still very equivocal about what this means if the process goes ahead.
We will see how these two members step up to the plate and we will see whether they really do want to support not only people who live in that particular area but also the people of the southern Woden Valley. The residents of Isaacs, O’Malley, Chifley and right down to Torrens are reputed to be living in areas which may also experience impacts if this plant is located at the back of Macarthur.
Mr Speaker, on the standing order 277 matter that was raised today by a member of this place, and with respect to what is simply the banter that occurs across the chamber, is he seriously considering that I might have been trying to molest him—that there has been molestation of members? These are issues that are simply beyond the pale.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .