Page 4039 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 16 Sept 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
estimate costs of the dam can be attributed to the fact that only four boreholes that Mr Sullivan says were originally drilled gave somewhat limited information about the geology.
But, no, when I read the environmental impact statement dated February 2009, it is clear that geotechnical surveying had been undertaken since 2007. Indeed, preliminary site investigations were carried out in 2007 and more extensive site investigations were completed in 2008, using helicopters to lift small drill rigs onto the steep abutment slopes. Investigations have included geological mapping, the establishment of test pits and boreholes, material sampling, chemical and physical testing of rock, percussion drilling and seismic survey works. In fact, at the main dam site, by February 2009, there had been 16 diamond-cored boreholes drilled, comprising a total length of 948 metres of rock, as well as seismic refraction surveying.
I hope somebody understands what all of those things mean. As I said, I am no engineer but I would appreciate some clarity on when Actew really knew about the latest impending cost blow-out, given this level of geotechnical information, and perhaps even some sense of why this was not made clear to the Chief Minister and the Deputy Chief Minister as shareholders and made clear to the people of Canberra as early as possible so that public debate could be informed. I am also looking forward to getting a breakdown of those cost increases.
It was raised in the Assembly yesterday that members would like to be informed of that information. The Treasurer did indicate she was willing to provide that, and I look forward to that. For example, is the $418 million to fund the extra nine metres of wall or were there other costs that Actew and its alliance partners, ActewAGL, John Holland Engineering, Abigroup engineering and GHD, forgot to include the first time around? Does it cost $118 million for all those cubic metres of concrete or are there other costs padded in here? And is this the final cost?
Mr Sullivan seemed prepared to bet his career on it the other day; so I suspect this is the cost at which the contracts will be drawn up for. Have those contracts already been signed, and what kind of margin is being built in to make Mr Sullivan so very confident that the costs will not increase? It is clear now, reading between the lines, that Actew knew full well that some such cost blow-out was on the way. The statements issued in the public domain by Actew did leave the door plenty open for this eventuality.
The bigger question still remains as to why this process is considered to be a suitable one for deciding on public spending for major infrastructure projects, why the original estimates were so badly out and whether we can improve the process for accountabilities for such investments so the people of Canberra can be very sure that we are getting value for money.
There is some discussion to go in this debate today. I understand we are going to adjourn this until after lunch so that we can actually sort through some of these amendments, because I think it is important that we get the wording of this motion right today.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .