Page 4550 - Week 12 - Thursday, 15 October 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
(5) if the Assembly is not sitting when the committee has completed its inquiry, the committee may send its report to the Speaker or, in the absence of the Speaker, to the Deputy Speaker, who is authorised to give directions for its printing, publishing and circulation;
(6) the foregoing provisions of this resolution so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders; and
(7) the committee conduct the inquiry as it sees fit, including but not limited to, calling witnesses, requesting or requiring documents and seeking relevant expert advice, support or assistance.
Today I am moving that we establish a select committee on Canberra’s major water security projects to be appointed to inquire into, comment upon and make recommendations on the terms of reference that have been set out on the notice paper.
Before we go into the detail of the motion, we need to reflect on how we have got to this point, the story so far. In summary, the story so far has been a government in denial on the need to act on water security; a community that has had to suffer as a result from harsh water restrictions going on for years and years and years; a government that finally in that context decided to act, announcing a $120 million project, increasing into the $180 millions, to $240-plus million—and now we are told $363 million.
We also have seen Jon Stanhope, at the end of that, having of course denied the need to act, expressing concern—not taking any responsibility, mind you—and doing his best to blame Actew for the blow-out. Then we had yesterday the Chief Minister changing tack slightly and saying, “Well, actually, it is not a blow-out,” that $120 million to $363 million is not a blow-out. We will go through the story so far in a little more detail.
The Canberra Liberals alerted the community to water security as a key issue for Canberra in 2004 and committed to the building of a new dam. While we were addressing the problem, the Stanhope government were in denial and quite irresponsibly talking down the idea of increased water storage. Three short years ago Jon Stanhope was telling Canberrans his strategy was:
… putting off for as long as we possibly can … the construction of another dam. If we can put if off forever, what a fantastic achievement by the ACT government that would be.
Jon Stanhope was selling as a virtue his lack of action on water security. He was saying that it was a good thing not to act; it was a good thing to hope for the best; it was a good thing to cross your fingers and hope for the best. That is the Jon Stanhope position: cross your fingers and hope for the best. That has been his position on water. After that, he said: “Actew is now saying through its reports and quite publicly that we may not need to think again about whether or not we need a dam.” That was the government’s position. They were hoping they could never do anything on water security. That was their move: “We don’t have to do anything”—the do-nothing position. That was the government’s position.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .