Page 4041 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 16 Sept 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I repeat: he said, “Put off for as long as we possibly can the construction of another dam.” That has been at the heart of the problem of this government’s attitude to water security. It has been putting off the hard decisions; it has been putting off the significant decisions. It is a matter of saying, “If we just hope that it rains, if we could just wait for it to rain again, we would not have to make any of these hard decisions.” But we have known that we have had a growing region and a growing population, and water saving measures, on their own, were never going to be enough.
We cannot expect that Canberrans will not be able to even apply the most basic amounts of water to their gardens indefinitely. It is a reasonable expectation in the community that they would be able to have some ability to use potable water on their gardens in a reasonable way. By delaying making these important decisions, Canberrans have had to suffer through many years of this—and, indeed, there will be a few years left.
The question now becomes: how much will we pay for that privilege? How much will we pay for the privilege of being able to water our gardens occasionally, of being able to have some form of water security, of not ever, hopefully, facing the prospect of going to stage 4 or stage 5 restrictions, and not finding ourselves in the position of Goulburn? How much will we have to pay? This is the fundamental question that is being addressed by this motion.
If you look at the amendment to the motion that Mr Corbell has proposed, a couple of obvious questions come to mind. Obviously, we see a very clear attempt to say: “It’s not our fault. It’s not our problem. It’s Actew’s. It’s got nothing to do with our oversight. It’s got nothing to do with the fact that ministers are here to serve the public interest, to protect the public interest, and there are publically owned corporations for which ministers have a very important role.” Clearly, that is part of this amendment.
But the other part, when we go to paragraph (5), is really about dumbing down or having less analysis and less accounting. If you compare what is in Mrs Dunne’s original motion—I commend her for bringing it forward—you see that a far more detailed account is being asked for. Mrs Dunne’s motion reads:
(5) calls on the Chief Minister, on behalf of the shareholders of ACTEW Corporation, and any ministers having an involvement in water security projects to provide … by close of business … in relation to both of the Cotter Dam enlargement and the Murrumbidgee to Googong transfer project:
(a) a full accounting of the factors leading to the cost blow-out; and
(b) a chronology of advice given to the shareholders, individual ministers, Cabinet or any government agencies in relation to the cost blow-out.
Mr Corbell seeks to limit that, and we do need to ask why. Why not go for the fullest possible accounting? Why not go for the fullest possible chronology? That is what we are asking for here. That is what today is about. Mr Corbell will try and make it about all sorts of other things, but this is a fairly straightforward motion. It gives a factual account of where we have got to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .