Page 2496 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 22 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR STANHOPE: Actually by an ex-senior member of the Greens.
Dr Foskey: Yes, on the back of an envelope. That is how I know.
MR STANHOPE: I have the details. You are always after submissions to be tabled, Dr Foskey. I can put the lie immediately to that suggestion. It was a detailed submission to the minister which costed it at $114 million, I remember, and which was an election promise of the Liberals, an immediate injection of $114 million by Mrs Dunne. That was over and above, getting back to something else which Mrs Dunne raised and which I cannot ignore the temptation to debate, the other great promise that the day after the election—it could not wait until the actual election of the Chief Minister—construction would commence on the Tennent dam. That was another promise in the suite of promises around water, climate change and sustainability. Isn’t it ironic as we talk about sustainability that it was said that the day after the election construction would commence on the Tennent dam, at a cost of $350 million and in a location—
Members interjecting—
MR SPEAKER: Order! Everybody will cease interjecting, including you, Mr Pratt. Treasurer, direct your comments through the chair, please. It would be less provocative if you did.
MR STANHOPE: I was provoked most outrageously, but I had the capacity not to respond. I simply did not respond to the outrageous provocation. Of course, there is the rub! As to keeping that promise of construction commencing the next day on the Tennent dam in the identified location, I am now advised by the engineers and hydrographers that Actew engaged that it would leak, that the hydrography and the geography probably would not be suitable for the retention of water in the $350 million dam that the Liberals were going to start constructing the day after the election.
Those are some of the issues that were raised in relation to this item. But to suggest that we have abandoned the Office of Sustainability or the sustainability expert reference group, or that we are not committed to climate change and we do not have a significant record of achievement in most of these things is simply to deny the truth and the facts of the matter. These are important issues and they are being pursued.
The debate we have had avoids and ignores, too, the significant streamlining structural changes that are reflected through the budget and reflected in the current structure for the Chief Minister’s Department. There was a conscious decision taken. We do change our administrative arrangements from time to time to suit certain circumstances and arrangements. There was a change in the administrative arrangements in relation to the environment, reflecting the departure of the previous minister, Mr Bill Wood, upon his retirement. The opportunity has now been taken by this government to look seriously and in depth at how best to meet the community’s needs and expectations in relation to government service delivery in a streamlined way.
Rather than having a mishmash, as it has been described, in relation to the environment, with the policy function here and a mystery function or a responsibility for delivery being invested in the Department of the Territory and Municipal Services, we have
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .