Ms BADGER question to PREMIER, Mr ROCKLIFF
Your government’s problematic and secretive approach to AI data centres has again been in the spotlight following Firmus’s IPO flop. But Firmus aren’t the only ones looking to build facilities in Tasmania. Last week, the Acting Coordinator-General confirmed a proponent is looking to build a data centre near Nook. Greenwing is considering AI infrastructure on the west coast, there’s discussion of infrastructure at Bothwell, and yesterday, Hydro Tasmania told the Energy committee that they’re speaking with an unnamed data centre proponent on a possible power deal. Tasmanians deserve transparency about these plans. They shouldn’t have to rely on the Greens and others to find out what’s planned for their community. That information should be available. Premier, will you finally tell Tasmanians the location and details of all data centres currently proposed in Tasmania and who the proponents are behind these plans?
ANSWER
I thank the honourable member for your question. Again, we welcome investment – that creates Tasmanian jobs, like Kangaroo Bay – and we will continue engaging with the proponent. This proposal was included in information previously tabled in parliament, as I understand it. We understand it remains under consideration by the proponent –
Ms BADGER – Which proponent, sorry, Premier?
Mr ROCKLIFF – And no final site has been confirmed. We encourage the proponent to engage early and openly with the local community. Any development would need to meet relevant planning and approval requirements. This is what I’m advised. The Office of the Coordinator-General is aware of a proponent discussing land with landholders in the Nook area. The project is at a very early feasibility stage. The proponent has advised it is yet to decide whether to proceed and will undertake due diligence, including community consultation, before making that decision.
Our draft expectations call for proponents to locate in appropriate industrial precincts away from urban areas, you’d be aware of. Any proposal would need to work through the usual planning and environmental processes, including consideration of the state policy and protection of agricultural land. I’m not going to pre-empt those processes. Our draft expectations are clear: our proponents should support additional renewable generation, meet the infrastructure and network costs associated with the development, and ensure water and power demand does not compromise supply security or raise costs for existing users. I’ve mentioned the transparency in terms of quarterly water usage and power usage.
We also expect proponents to deliver Tasmanian jobs, skills and training and local procurement opportunities. Under our draft approach, major proponents also would contribute to a local community benefit fund, which was spoken about today. I understand the proposal remains under consideration by the proponent and we will continue to engage, but any development must be assessed on its merits.
Supplementary Question
Ms Badger – The Premier just mentioned ‘the proponent’, but I listed several proposals, so we actually don’t know who the proponent is. I want clarity that you were speaking specifically about the Nook one. The question was quite simple. Why won’t you tell Tasmanians all the details at hand? They’re having to dig around to find different documents that are publicly on display to find out which one of these proposals might be proposed for their backyard. Your draft expectations are very clear about trust and community consultation. You actually need to lay that out to them. The lack of transparency in this is unprecedented. Even when we’re talking about the EOI to privatise the parks, you say who the proponent is.
The SPEAKER – The honourable member’s time has expired.
Mr Rockliff – I thank the honourable member for the question. My previous answer was in relation to Nook, as I’m advised. I’m happy to provide information when that is available and comes to hand.
Ms FINLAY – It must be at hand now, Premier.
The SPEAKER – Honourable Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
