Page 4934 - Week 13 - Thursday, 12 November 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I want to be quite clear about any sort of Assembly inquiry. We have never ruled out an inquiry, and, indeed, we have been instrumental in establishing this one through the ICRC. That said, we were never predisposed to a select committee, as we considered that the issues that were put in Mr Seselja’s original terms of reference were too broad for an Assembly inquiry. We are concerned that those original terms of reference would require expert advice. We also thought there was further information that was required, and we have actually achieved getting those documents now, and I note that Mr Seselja and his colleagues have used them extensively. We believe there are other processes rather than reference to a select committee.
In terms of where we are up to now, as I said earlier, we agree that many of the terms of reference in Mr Seselja’s motion are worthy of consideration, and many of them will be picked up by the ICRC. Some are not going to be addressed by the ICRC, and I want to focus on that point now. Our preferred pathway is to take some of those unexplained issues back to the annual reports hearings which will come up in just a couple of weeks. Actew will be attending, and that will be an opportunity to really scrutinise Actew further, in a public forum, to get to the bottom of some of those questions.
That leaves open the option of a referral to the environment, climate change and water committee. I also flag that the Greens are not precluding that option for the future, because it is important that we continue to scrutinise this issue until we get to the end of answering the questions we need the answers to. There are still a range of questions that need to be answered. These questions mostly focus around information provided by Actew about the Cotter project both to the government and to the public in regard to the cost of the projects, cost-benefit analysis of the project and water policy outcomes of the project.
It is clear the government were somewhat surprised by the scale of the bill that was presented to them in September when the final TOC was completed, and this raises some further questions about how, at this point, Actew and/or the government confirmed choices to proceed with the project in spite of the increased costs. I have, for example, received some information from Mr Sullivan in the last week about the net economic benefit of the Cotter project, but, interestingly, the analysis is dated August 2009, was undertaken by CIE and only compares project scenarios that include the Cotter rather than comparing the Cotter and other project options, such as the Tantangara transfer.
Mr Sullivan was keen to reassure me that the decision to proceed with the higher price tag was based on economic analysis, but I am assuming he has a more comprehensive set of numbers to justify this than those he forwarded through to my office. The questions for me are: who undertook the analysis; how both Actew and the government determined post the $363 million price tag that the dam was the best policy choice; and how, within days of knowing that increased price, both the board and the shareholders were happy to sign off without fully exploring other options.
There are still many questions to be answered, and I hope that Mr Sullivan will take the opportunity at annual report hearings in just a couple of weeks to put some of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video