Page 432 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 23 February 2010

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

notified to the Speaker by 4 p.m. this sitting day.

Mr Speaker, we in the ACT have a government-owned corporation which is spending half a billion dollars of taxpayers’ money on a very important series of water security projects. These projects, particularly the enlargement of the Cotter Dam, are amongst the most costly infrastructure projects ever undertaken since self-government.

Over a long period, the Canberra Liberals have said that we support the collective aim of these projects, which is to secure Canberra’s future water supply. Our aim is simple—and I think it is the aim of all of us here—but it goes to a very important element. The element here is the people of the ACT. As taxpayers—whether through direct taxes or, in this case, the consumption of water—the people of the ACT are funding these projects. The people of the ACT are footing the bill for expenditure of more than half a billion dollars.

What can the people of the ACT reasonably expect in return for their money? What is their entitlement? In simple terms, there are three elements. The first is that it gives them a long-term entitlement to water security. The second is that they should be thoroughly engaged in the process. We have seen, time after time, that the people of the ACT want to participate in and contribute to the development of their city and its amenity, and they want to be consulted in relation to this important project. But the third element that the people of the ACT want is honesty when it comes to this project, and this is the element of the motion that I seek to address today.

I need to put it on the record that this issue is not about whether or not the Liberal opposition or anyone else in this place supports or does not support the water security projects. It is quite clear that we do. The issue here today is whether, when we deal with these issues, they are dealt with honestly by this government and by officials who support this government.

When witnesses appear before an Assembly committee to give evidence, they are asked to read a privilege statement and indicate that they understand the terms of that statement. One of the terms states:

Witnesses must tell the truth, and giving false or misleading evidence will be treated as a serious matter.

Ministers in this place and senior officials are regular attenders at estimates committees, annual reports committees and various other Assembly committees. Routinely, they are asked to acknowledge this matter.

Mr Speaker, it is a serious matter—a very serious matter. And why is it so? Simply because Assembly committees—and, through them, the Assembly itself—must be able to conduct business, make recommendations and decisions and appropriate taxpayers’ money based on the best available information. For that to be the best possible information, it must be the truth.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .