Page 4931 - Week 13 - Thursday, 12 November 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
where Actew will appear for several hours, are an opportunity to further resolve those. But we also note that there remain further options in this Assembly to explore issues that remain unresolved, whether that is to ask questions on the floor of the chamber or whether it is through a reference to the environment, climate change and water standing committee. There are a number of other options that remain out there for us to go through.
They are the points I wanted to cover today, but let us recap, first of all, what has happened. When the cost blow-out initially became apparent back at the start of September, we debated a motion here in the Assembly expressing concern. As a result of that motion, all members received some further information that was requested by the Assembly of Actew. That was an accounting of the factors leading to the increase in costs of the project and a chronology of when Actew advised the government of their variation of costs and details thereof in relation to the projects.
On 17 September, the minister circulated a response from the Managing Director of Actew, Mark Sullivan, which added some value to our understanding of what had happened but, frankly, raised more questions than it answered. I now suspect that document was pulled together in rather a hurry, because it lacked detail, had some rather misleading information contained within and failed to provide the information that was really required and desired by the Assembly. At that stage, the Greens were keen to see more of the documents that had been referred to in various places, including the contracts, the target out-turn costs and the independent review of the target out-turn costs that was conducted by Deloitte.
We amended significantly Mr Seselja’s last motion calling for an inquiry, because we felt it was more useful at that stage to actually get a better understanding of some of the issues that were being discussed by Actew. Since then, the Greens, like other members of this place, have received those documents. Now, there were some bits blacked out, and we have also received a detailed three-hour briefing from Mr Sullivan at Actew and several of his colleagues. I think what that process has shown is that in getting those documents we have actually already received a lot more information about what went on. We have been able to read some of the criticisms and some of the information that already exists on the table. I note that, in his presentation, Mr Seselja has not acknowledged that expressly, although he has used a lot of the information.
I think one of the most interesting reports that came through was Deloitte’s assessment that Actew itself actually commissioned several months ago. It is important to note here that that report was certainly far from favourable for Actew. There are some important points that I would like to reflect on now as part of what the process of scrutiny has already revealed about these cost increases. I think it is fair to say that the Deloitte’s report was a positive report. It certainly did not give Actew an A-plus in regard to community consultation, expectations and the process developed so far, and it highlighted a number of concerns around the comparability of estimates, which is really the key question that is being debated at the moment.
The Deloitte’s report mentions that, while the July 2007 GHD update of the cost estimate of $145 million focused on construction costs only, not related costs, Actew
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video