Page 4076 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 16 Sept 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
the revelation that ACT taxpayers must foot the bill for the enormous cost blow-out, to the tune of an average $100 extra on their water bill.
After years of delay, years of procrastination, we are down to this. This government are always performing the most extraordinary backflips. The government have said they will keep an eye on the cost from now on. This is not good enough. Why were they not monitoring the cost of one of the largest infrastructure projects in the ACT from the word go?
I totally endorse Mrs Dunne’s call on the Chief Minister, on behalf of the shareholders of Actew Corporation, and any ministers having an involvement in water security projects, to provide to the Legislative Assembly, by close of business on Thursday, 17 September 2009, in relation to both 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 (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water, Minister for Energy and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (3.37): I am going to ask leave of the Assembly to move an amendment to my amendment. I have not circulated it, but what I wish to do is simply insert the words “ministers and shareholders” after “government” in paragraph 5(b).
Mrs Dunne: Could I suggest that I speak to your amendment while you are doing that and circulating it.
MR CORBELL: That would be great. Thank you.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (3.38): The opposition will not be supporting the minister’s amendment.
Ms Gallagher: Amendment or amendment to the amendment?
MRS DUNNE: I do understand—the amendment as he has currently moved it. And, in anticipation of his amendment to that, we will not be supporting that either. It is an improvement on what is currently there, but what the opposition is asking for, on behalf of the people of the ACT, is a full accounting, with the Chief Minister, as the head of the government in the ACT, taking responsibility for that.
The words being used in the minister’s amendment are nothing more than blame shifting and trying to deflect attention away from the government and onto the territory-owed corporation. Yes, Actew is the body actually building the dam, but Actew is doing this at the request of the government. The government could, if it wanted to, build that dam itself. It is doing it this way for a variety of good and bad reasons. Most of them are good. But the fact that Actew is doing this does not mean that the government does not have any responsibility for this. The notion encompassed in the minister’s amendment is really about deflecting responsibility back onto Actew.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .