Page 3229 - Week 07 - Thursday, 1 July 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The transparency issues relating to the major water security projects were of such concern that this Assembly asked the ICRC to investigate, amongst other things, the prudence and efficiency of the enlarged Cotter Dam project in terms of its ability to meet the water security standards required of Actew. I note that the Canberra Liberals proposed a motion in the Assembly in November last year to establish a select committee to inquire into the conduct of the major water security projects. Ultimately, the Greens and the government conspired to water down the terms of reference and instead referred the matter to the ICRC.
The ICRC’s final report, as you will all know, was only released yesterday and, at first blush, this is not a very good report for Actew. It will need more consideration than my colleagues and I have been able to give it at the same time as the budget debate is going on, and we will say more about that in the near future; suffice it to note the ICRC’s finding on whether the enlarged Cotter Dam project meets the prudency and efficiency test.
In summary, the ICRC found that the enlarged Cotter Dam by itself did not meet those tests and that in combination with other projects may—note the word “may”—prove prudent over time. So the ICRC has also cast a cloud over the prudence and efficiency of the enlarged Cotter Dam but has stopped short of coming to the conclusion as to whether or not the major water security, in concert with other projects, will secure Canberra’s water supply into the future. There is much more that needs to be said about this when members in this place have an opportunity to more closely scrutinise what is in the ICRC report. This, too, puts doubt on the management practices behind the development of these projects. It may even put doubt on the prudence and efficiency of these projects altogether. But, as I have said, this is a matter for another day.
The take out for this government from the whole experience over the last four years is to review the whole process from start to finish and learn from that review. Mistakes have been made, whether they were deliberate or otherwise, and this government needs to be able to be willing to acknowledge those mistakes, learn from them and improve the processes. (Second speaking period taken.) The denials of the past must be put aside for better processes in the future. We cannot have a situation where the major shareholders have spent the last four or five years essentially with their hands off the wheel waiting for somebody else to make the decisions.
The estimates committee dissenting report by Mr Seselja and Mr Smyth recommended:
… that the Government undertake a case study of the management of the major water security infrastructure projects with a view to developing policies and guidelines for future major infrastructure projects to ensure the community is kept as fully informed as reasonably possible during the development and delivery of those projects.
I commend that recommendation to the government, but I note from the earlier tirade from Mr Hargreaves that he probably does not agree with that, because it is actually asking the government to undertake a review. It seems that Mr Hargreaves does not think we should learn from our mistakes.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video