Page 4825 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 14 December 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Mulcahy: Point of order: Mr Speaker, you already indicated to the Chief Minister that he was straying from the question and you asked him to resume. He completely disregarded your ruling so I raise the issue of relevance.
MR SPEAKER: Order! I asked the Chief Minister to come to the subject matter of the question. I am sure he is going to do so.
MR STANHOPE: I will. I was dealing with the subject matter of water, the Tennent Dam and the way in which we protect our sovereign rights. The Tennent Dam, of course, is at the heart of the approach to be taken by the Liberal Party. It was going to commence construction at a cost of $250 million after it had expended $840 million on retrofitting every house in the ACT with solar cells. On top of that Tennent Dam takes us up to just over the $1 billion mark in two promises, one on energy and one on water. So we have a cool $1 billion worth of promises. Of course, that does not take into account the $140 million in capital funds that were to be used to employ more nurses and doctors at the hospital.
Mrs Dunne: Point of order: Mr Speaker, my question was about the government’s approach to the paramount right to water and not a foray through Liberal Party policies, which I am quite happy to debate at any time. Will the minister answer the question?
MR SPEAKER: Order! The question was about the exercise of sovereign rights over water in the ACT.
MR STANHOPE: That is relevant to Tennent Dam. The government has been rigorous, objective, hard headed and sensible in the exercise of sovereign rights for Tennent Dam. We would not have done as the coat-tuggers opposite would have done. I have another great example. People across the border use our designated, hard-earned and hard-paid-for water. At the heart of the debate is the fact—and I think this is an issue for growing frustration and of embarrassment to some people across the border—that over the last three years ACT ratepayers, through Actew, put up around $60 million.
That $60 million is ACT ratepayer money that the denizens of Queanbeyan, or at least the mayor of Queanbeyan, think for some reason it is okay for ACT ratepayers to put up. This is where the coat-tugging analogy comes in. It is okay for ACT ratepayers to put up $60 million but, on the basis of a bit of pressure from across the border, the Liberal Party approach is: just cave in. Do not worry about the scarcity and the value of water. Do not worry about the fact that ACT ratepayers, through Actew and this government, secured that resource and supply of water in a most intelligent way without having to build Tennent Dam, on which the Liberals were going to start construction on 18 October last year—after, of course, they had spent $840 million retrofitting every house in the ACT.
It is interesting to note that these promises are still on the book and I presume they are in Mr Mulcahy’s alternative budget. If Mr Mulcahy were honest and he were to have any credibility at all that $1 billion would be in his alternative budget.
Mr Stefaniak: He is not that—
MR STANHOPE: Mr Stefaniak is quite right; he does not have any credibility.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .