It beggars belief that the backers of the $2 billion Canberra Technology City consortium can insouciantly and suddenly claim that the co-generation power plant can be more than halved without affecting the business case for the data centre. Are the alleged reasons the true reasons?

The ACT Government seems bemused, and the Opposition is reduced to sniggering on the sidelines. Who is the guardian of the public interest?

The business case is, or should be, a description of what people want the project to do, and how much it is going to cost. It determines how much investment is needed and the return on that investment. The balance of costs and benefits is set against the risks involved. We don't know much about the business case. Nor are we meant to.

But we can form a view about it. Even before the latest disclosures, the results were not encouraging.

First, we don't know who owns the business case. Is it industry, or the ACT Government, or a combination of both, or some other entity, proposing to affect the lives of so many people?

Retiring chief executive of ActewAGL John Mackay asserts the technology city would provide Canberra "with much needed diversification of industry and employment, moving us beyond our heavy dependence on the public sector". Is he the appropriate person to tell us such things? Does the ACT Government endorse his remarks? If so, why isn't it making the remarks? Isn't the claim of much needed diversification bogus? Hasn't the ACT economy diversified into information technology, armaments, and even pornography and gambling? What about tourism, and business conventions, and events such as Summernats? What about the growth of the business parks at the airport? Aren't we facing the imminent growth of Canberra Airport into a 24/7 air freight hub and diversion for Sydney Airport?

How much difference would a power station and data centre make? All we are told is there will be much needed diversification, and that, apparently, should be good enough for us.

The combination on one site seems odd. Does one functionally support the other? Had the need to provide an uninterruptible power supply for the data centre blossomed into something else? Was the "something else" jettisoned as public disquiet grew? Why was the original level of power generation so high, if the project can proceed with massive cuts in investment? Perhaps, neither part is sustainable on its own. The suspicion grows that the project is risky. If so, who bears that risk? Is it the banks? Or is it we?

Are economies of scale irrelevant to power generation and distribution? The day is coming when fossil fuels will be unaffordable. Won't we then be left with an expensive white elephant? The cost is where the most insidious risk lies. We are steered away from cost issues, where the project sponsors know they are vulnerable, on to - for them - safer grounds.

The distinction between direct and indirect costs is important. Direct costs are incurred, either in the construction or operation of the project. Indirect costs are less tangible, but no less real. They can be disguised and deflected to third parties. Pollution is not the issue. The issue is the indirect costs of pollution. Whether environmental guidelines are met or not, property values, lifestyles and health will be adversely affected. These effects translate into monetary costs the project sponsors seek to avoid.

We are incurring costs because of the expansion of the business park at the airport. The airport owners are making profits at the expense of those costs. We are funding the belated road improvements, and the people of Pialligo are wearing reduced property values and quality of life that ought to be a charge to the business expansion at the airport.

How can we stop it happening? A mature and responsible government deals with such things by conducting a public cost benefit analysis. Consideration of costs extends to indirect costs, no matter how difficult that may be.

The project sponsors will not publish a cost-benefit analysis. Only the ACT Government can force it. But in our democracy local government is deficient. It lacks the intellectual horsepower to deal with big issues. The Government, Opposition and Independents show no sign of understanding how to deal with the situation. Canberrans suffer with no obvious means of redress. We should seek laws in the Legislative Assembly that would force the publication of business cases so they can be exposed to public scrutiny. The difficulties are obvious, but, until we have a more competent system of government, we have little choice.