Page 1899 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 25 June 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
involved in the site selection process, because his signature is on several documents. The semantic differences between selection and identification had not been invented at that point in time; the terms were being used interchangeably. And, like a number of other so-called explanations in this matter, the particular meanings given to otherwise incriminating words and sentences seem to have been invented after the fact.
Before I turn to the other specific grounds for this motion, I would like to touch on the issue of the alleged Belconnen power plant. I have seen three separate documents which read as if ActewAGL intended to install a gas-fired power plant at Belconnen. I think that people would be entirely justified in believing and asserting that a power plant was considered or even proposed for the Belconnen data centre. After listening to John Mackay’s explanation as to why these documents were factually incorrect, I accept his assurance that a full-blown gas-fired power station was never planned for this site, but I would not condemn the opposition for raising the issue.
I turn to the second part of the motion. From what I have said, it should be obvious that I am in considerable agreement with this statement. I am not sure whether the $1 billion has actually been lost, but it does seem as though the government should have invested more in facilitating this development. Instead, different arms of government seem to have been acting at odds with each other and without sufficient communication. Mr Mackay said in evidence to the committee that the words “the site was no longer available” on one of the documents actually meant that the site was not available on the same terms. He said that the changed terms were conveyed in discussion on 6 July. No evidence has been presented to me to show what those changed terms were.
It is of vital importance to this matter for us to know what and who was involved in that conversation. If someone eventually told ActewAGL that their preferred site would be revalued to bring it into line with current industrial land values, then we should know that. Telling us that the land was originally undervalued and that it was subsequently changed is hardly commercial-in-confidence information. It should be embarrassing to the LDA and to the Chief Minister’s Department that they did not get onto it sooner.
I do not claim for a moment to be making any judgement as to whether any of these sites might have been able to house a full-scale development. I accept ActewAGL’s arguments that the site they ended up with was truly superior to their previously preferred site. But why were they still wasting time and energy trying to get approval for their initial preferred site so late in the piece when we are told that time was of the absolute essence?
I turn to the third part of the motion about selectively releasing materials. The government did not see fit to show me all the documents that were released to the opposition under FOI. There was no reason why the government should have not released all this information, not only to me but to the public. It is undeniable that the government withheld the bulk of available documents from the Assembly and the public.
Whether this was justified is another matter. Many documents would be commercial in confidence and many would involve the unreasonable release of private
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .