Page 4050 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 16 Sept 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
compared to previous estimates. But an estimate is just that—it is an estimate. It is subject to change, it is subject to further investigation, and that is what occurred.
MR SPEAKER: Mrs Dunne, a supplementary question?
MRS DUNNE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Minister, was the Treasurer wrong yesterday when she said that these were rough estimates and how much can we guarantee the current price?
MR CORBELL: No she was not, and I have just answered that question.
MR SPEAKER: Mr Seselja, a supplementary question?
MR SESELJA: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Minister, what are you doing to ensure the costing of major projects is more rigorous in the future?
MR CORBELL: You mean water security projects, I presume?
Opposition members interjecting—
MR SPEAKER: Order! Let us hear the answer.
MR CORBELL: The government has indicated that we will continue to pay close attention to the development of these matters. We will continue to expect regular reports from Actew on the implementation of the project and we look forward to seeing the results of those reports.
MR SPEAKER: Mr Smith, a supplementary question?
MR SMYTH: Thanks, Mr Speaker. Minister, was it appropriate to only advise the community of the extent of the blow-out in this project after the government had called in the DA?
MR CORBELL: Well, the two matters are not in any way associated. I saw this absurd suggestion made by Mrs Dunne earlier today during the debate on her motion where she suggested that the call-in was designed to hide information. Now, I do not know whether Mrs Dunne understands how the call-in process operates, but the issue—
Mrs Dunne: I mean, I know that you might be a bit jet-lagged, Simon, but you at least have to listen to what people say.
MR CORBELL: You do not like it when you get caught out, Mrs Dunne. That is the problem. But the issue is that, of course, the call-in process relies on all of the information publicly notified to the planning authority by the development proponent. Mr Barr has taken his decision based on that information. It is public information. All the documentation is on the public record, available publicly from the planning authority. So to suggest there is any link between the cost of the project and the approval of the project is simply absurd.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .