In recent weeks, the fate of an aging power station in NSW's Hunter Valley has become the unlikely focus of a spirited debate over Australia's energy mix.
Mr Wilson's claim is overreach. It would be highly unusual for the Commonwealth to acquire a working asset such as the Liddell Power Station. Over recent times, governments of all persuasions have to varying degrees sought to privatise infrastructure and essential services, not buy them. It is unsurprising that a conservative member of parliament, holding a core ideological belief in the private sector, would be hesitant to acquire an asset unless doing so was "the last resort". But there is nothing in Commonwealth or state legislation that requires compulsory acquisition to be used only as a last resort or in extreme situations. The Government could choose to immediately start the process to compulsorily acquire Liddell. And putting aside the specific case of Liddell, governments of both political persuasions regularly use compulsory acquisition powers for road and other infrastructure projects that are not critical and when other options may be available. The new Western Sydney Airport, for instance, will be on land that was mostly acquired in the late 1980s. And it has been argued that the Victorian Government is planning to compulsorily acquire private bus company assets, even though there is no suggestion of a urgent crisis in bus services in that state. Mr Wilson's claim in itself is ambiguous. A viewer might have taken him to be expressing a personal opinion on when he believed compulsory acquisition should be used. But he does not preface the claim as an opinion, and it is couched in general terms: it is apparently "understood" that compulsory acquisition is "the power of absolute last resort". It was clearly open to a viewer to take Mr Wilson's comments to be a statement of fact.
Fact check: Is compulsory acquisition a last resort for extreme cases?
['Australia', 'Hunter_Region', 'New_South_Wales']