Page 51 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 12 February 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Opposition members interjecting—
MR STANHOPE: I think I used this the other day in another context but it is just as applicable here: the ACT government and the ACT community had made available to it by Actew the most detailed, rigorous, scientific assessment and modelling of possibilities around a whole range of issues, such as climate change, bushfire damage, rainfall patterns, population growth, the capacity performance of existing dams, and made a decision on the basis of advice and recommendations from Actew in relation to that evidence, that scientific expertise and those reports.
As a result of the continuing drought and the unprecedented low inflows of the year before last—inflows that were significantly worse than the worst-case scenario reported on by CSIRO in its first report—Actew commissioned further work. So, as a result of the modelling and the predictions of the first report being exceeded dramatically, Actew did what the government and Actew should do. They said: “Well, a worst-case scenario presented by Actew and the CSIRO has been exceeded dramatically. We need to revisit our assumptions in the modelling.” So we commissioned further work and as a result of that work the decision that the government announced last year, including to construct that dam at the Cotter, was taken.
It puts me in mind of, I think, Galbraith. I had better get this straight because it seems quite peculiar that the opposition, the Liberal Party, proposed as a basis of decision making that, if you have a report or rigorous scientific information and advice one day and you base a decision on that advice and then two years later the entire structure and nature of the advice changes, you say, “Oh, well, if the advice or the facts change, too bad—stick with your original decision.” I am sure it was Galbraith who said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?”
Opposition members interjecting—
MR SPEAKER: Order!
MR STANHOPE: The Liberal Party stand today and say, “Well, it is irrelevant to us whether the facts or the circumstances or the situation changes, once you make a decision, and if you are in politics or public life and you have announced a decision, you must never, ever take account of a change in circumstance and change your decision.”
Mr Smyth: So you can apologise.
MR STANHOPE: This is the policy position or framework—
Mr Smyth: So you will apologise?
MR STANHOPE: which the Liberal Party will rely on.
Mr Smyth: So you will apologise?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .