Page 4555 - Week 12 - Thursday, 15 October 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
However, while we remain concerned about the cost blow-out, we think that the next step is to get hold of some of the most basic information about the project—the contracts signed by Actew and the Bulk Water Alliance, formal costing documents and any independent analysis of the project that has been undertaken. It is our understanding that there have been independent analyses of the costs put forward by Actew. It makes sense to do this before we commit the resources of either the executive or the Assembly to the establishment of an inquiry.
Many of the questions that have been raised over the past few weeks may well be answered by getting access to a much better level of information from Actew about the Cotter Dam project. However—and I would like to be very clear about this—the Greens are not ruling out the need for an inquiry in the future. If this next step of obtaining documents and getting a full and comprehensive briefing from Actew and the alliance partners on the content of these documents either (a) does not deliver the required information to the Assembly or (b) raises any question of impropriety or bad practice, then we will consider further the instigation of an inquiry. But at this stage we think it is premature to take this issue to an inquiry until the Assembly is more fully informed of some of the facts. That is what our amendment, which I will move shortly, will seek to achieve.
The motion before the Assembly, as Mr Seselja has noted, proposes to establish a select committee. We have given great consideration to the merit of that, and even of an independent inquiry set up by the government under the Inquiries Act—whether that would be a more suitable mechanism. Should we come to the point where an inquiry does indeed seem to be what is needed, there are pros and cons with both of these options. Not least is the level of resourcing that might be required for such an inquiry both in terms of time and expertise. It is for this reason as well that we think it is important to seek further information, information that we know is readily accessible and most likely comprehensive.
Of course, the Assembly has already had a motion on the Cotter Dam costs. As a result of that, Actew provided information to the minister that spoke to the request for a detailed accounting of the factors leading to the increase in the cost of the Cotter and Googong pipeline projects, as well as detail about the information shared on the cost variations to the government, shareholders and ministers. However, the information provided by Actew on that occasion did not answer some of the most basic questions that perhaps members thought it would. Consequently, there are a number of questions that remain and information that should be provided to the Assembly.
None of us in this chamber are project managers, nor are we engineers or experts in civil construction. But we do have an obligation to the Canberra community to drive accountability for how public money is spent. The funding for the dam and the other water security projects being undertaken by Actew is essentially public money. For the Assembly to review the target outturn cost and the independent review of that target outturn cost would go a long way to increasing the transparency around the cost of this particular project—a project that will ultimately be paid for by Canberra’s water consumers.
The increase in cost estimates for the Cotter has been spectacular to say the least. Perhaps most surprising to us, and I gather to the government and the opposition, was
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .