Page 4631 - Week 12 - Thursday, 15 October 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
provided and what we got was an anodyne summary. The Assembly, either through its committees or of its own volition, can call for documents. The fall-back position proposed by Mr Rattenbury today squibs the real issue and prevaricates about getting to the point where we all know we will inevitably be—that there must be an inquiry. The Liberal opposition will not rest until there is a proper inquiry into this.
Mr Rattenbury’s initial proposal was a substantial step along the way because what it did was enumerate the documents that we should receive. The Liberal opposition considers that the counter proposal put forward by the Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water is a step backwards. We started to move down the path towards an inquiry and Mr Rattenbury took us a fair way with the bulk of documents that he has called for. But this has now been wound back. It is quite clear how this is going to work—that neither the Greens nor the Labor Party have the courage yet to shine a light on this and have a proper inquiry.
I think that the Greens have allowed themselves to be duped by the minister and we will again receive documents that are already on the public record. For instance, the Liberal opposition already has all the geotechnical reports. We asked for them under the Freedom of Information Act. We were told that they were publicly available documents. They said, “Here they are, Mrs Dunne.” We already had those and Mr Rattenbury and any other member of the Assembly could already have received them. They are publicly available documents.
Most of the documents mentioned in Mr Corbell’s paragraph (5) are publicly available documents. As to subparagraph (d), a synopsis of documents outlined in (6)(a) and (6)(b)—the target turnout costs and the contract for the Bulk Water Alliance—these will again be anodyne documents that I predict will raise more questions than they answer. The Liberal opposition will not be supporting Mr Corbell’s proposed amendment to Mr Rattenbury’s amendment. We were minded that Mr Rattenbury’s proposal took us most of the way along the path that we wanted to go, but I think that if we have to settle for Mr Corbell’s approach it will take us so little distance along the way that we cannot possible support the motion as it will end up.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (5.43): Just briefly, I would like to note that the Greens will be accepting the amendment Mr Corbell has put forward. As Mr Corbell touched on, during the lunchbreak today there was a cross-party meeting between the Labor Party, Liberal Party and the Greens. It was attended also by the head of Actew, Mark Sullivan. We had a detailed discussion there about the documents. At this stage, we are happy to accept the spirit in which that conversation took place. We trust that the information will be forthcoming and that the briefings that have been offered to both the Greens and the Liberal Party will take place.
Between the presentation of the documents described in my amendment—subsequently amended by Mr Corbell—and the briefings that are going to take place, I think that by the time we come back to this place for the next sitting period all members of this place will have the opportunity to be extremely well informed about what has taken place and what questions may still remain. I think that will give us the opportunity to have a thorough debate.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .