Page 4033 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 16 Sept 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
the Murrumbidgee to Googong pipeline project. The government agreed in October 2007 to Actew’s recommendations that these two projects be further developed for the next stage, which we are now at today.
So that is the history of the government’s action: no delay, no refusal to confront reality; instead, a detailed and comprehensive plan, dating back to 2004, to reduce potable water use, to seek alternative sources of supply, to create better use of non-potable supply sources and to establish long-term targets to manage our water use into the future. That is the government’s record. It is a comprehensive one, it is a far-sighted one and it is one which has continued to deliver strong policy to manage our water into the future.
I would now like to turn to the amendment that I have put before the Assembly. The government agrees that there is real concern about the increased cost of these projects. But the government also believes that Canberrans want to see these projects delivered. Canberrans want to see improvements in their water security and we know that augmenting the supply options is just one part of doing that. It is important, it needs to be done, but it is not the only element. We also need to further improve demand management. We need to further improve use of non-potable water and re-use of water. But supply augmentation is part of the policy response. The government accepts that there is concern about the cost but the government also believes that these projects are supported by the community and they must proceed.
It is important to note that the ACT consumer is not subject simply to the whims of Actew when it comes to the costs of these projects and the pass-through of those onto water bills. The fact is that any pass-through of costs from these projects to water consumers must be approved by the ICRC, by the Independent Competition and Regulatory Commission. They must be satisfied that these costs are reasonable in the circumstances and that Actew has taken every possible step to make sure that the costs are reasonable and proportionate to the projects that are proposed. That is the protection that is available to consumers, and unfortunately it is a fact that is lost in this debate.
The ICRC have already approved a pass-through of costs associated with these projects. If Actew believe that that pass-through is insufficient, they must go back to the ICRC and seek the ICRC’s approval for further costs to be passed through. That seems to be ignored in all the commentary we get from the Liberal Party, but that is the very important protection that is available to consumers, and it must not be forgotten. In the event, of course, that the ICRC does not approve pass-through, that is a cost that will have to be worn by Actew, as a corporation. So those are the facts before us in this circumstance and they must not be forgotten. The consumer is protected through the ICRC framework.
The amendment that I am putting forward indicates, amongst a number of things, that in terms of the administration of this project the detailed management of the project, the detailed financial assessment of the project and the ultimate contractual arrangements are between the board of Actew Corporation and the relevant parties they have engaged to develop the projects. That is consistent, of course, with the provisions of the Territory-owned Corporations Act. It is not the shareholders or the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .