Page 4630 - Week 12 - Thursday, 15 October 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
give as much explanation as possible in terms of the legal advice we receive and which Actew has received in that regard. The bottom line in the government’s position is that we support the need for full levels of explanation and detail for members so that members can be properly informed as to all of the factors involving the changed costs in relation to these projects. I commend the amendment to the Assembly.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (5.37): There could be no better endorsement of the motion that has been moved by Mr Seselja today than the Chief Minister himself. He gave that endorsement for a review in an interview on ABC radio on 3 September. When he was asked how he reacted to the news that the cost of the enlargement of the Cotter Dam had blown out to $363 million he said, “The government received this news last week with significant surprise. Well, complete surprise and significant concern.” Indeed, he went on to say, “There are aspects, perhaps, of communication in relation to this and perhaps in the cost estimates that on reflection need deep review.” The words were “deep review”, Madam Assistant Speaker. But today we have Mr Corbell saying that this is not the time or the place for deep review.
As Mr Seselja rightly pointed out, $363 million is a huge wad of cash to be spent on something for the people of the ACT. The fact is that these costs have blown out in such an extravagant way over time and, up until now, there has been less than the degree of candour that Mr Corbell says we should be receiving from Actew on this matter. This is why we agree with the Chief Minister that this matter should be a matter of deep review.
For the minister to come in here today and say, “This is not the time or the place for a review of this matter,” shows just how out of touch they are. For the Greens to come in here today and again put off what is inevitably going to happen—we will have to have a review into this—shows that they are out of touch, that they are not ready to shine the cleansing daylight of scrutiny on this process.
Back in September we moved a motion which called for documents. No member of this place received anything like the documents that they expected to receive. In fact, they received half a dozen pages of anodyne summary. That is why we are here today. The anodyne summary provided by Actew to us through the minister after the debate in September raises more questions than it answers. The Liberal opposition is of the view that the only way that we can effectively answer those questions is by a review in this place, and the best way to do that, because the issues relating to these water security projects cover so many areas, is to put together a select committee. It does not necessarily fit with the environment committee, which would have carriage of water, because it is not necessarily just a water issue. It is a matter of capital works, which may fit with the urban services committee. It is also about government expenditure. That could also fit with the public accounts committee. This is why we have decided that the best way forward is a select committee because this is such an all-encompassing project, which has such an impact on the people of the ACT, that it warrants this.
The people of the ACT are deeply concerned about the escalating costs. The people of the ACT are deeply concerned, as is the Liberal opposition, about the obfuscation that we have seen from Actew. There was a clear motion that documents should be
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .