Page 1474 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 10 April 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
So the amendments that I have circulated go to clarify a number of the known facts in relation to the issues that have been raised by the opposition leader and to outline the steps that the shareholders believe are appropriate to deal with each of those.
In relation to the first amendment, I am suggesting amending the opposition leader’s motion to clarify the situation in relation to the enlarged Cotter Dam. In doing so, I clearly recognise that the community has a significant interest in the cost of the dam. I acknowledge that the dam represents a major cornerstone in the territory’s water security measures to avoid the impact of prolonged drought and variable rainfall and that over time this significant investment in water security will need to be paid for by the community.
The enlarged Cotter Dam project was originally approved with a total project budget of $363 million in August 2009. This budget has been the subject of several independent reviews—and I think Minister Rattenbury observed that in his public comments this morning—all of which confirmed that this was a reasonable price estimate. The reasons for the cost and schedule increases from that $363 million budget have been well documented and debated in this place and in the media extensively over the last 12 or so months. But I think it is pretty well acknowledged that the reasons for those changes are the result of several abnormal events that I think even the harshest critic of the ACTEW management would suggest were well beyond the control of the project management team. In summary, these of course were the discovery of the major geological fault during the excavation for the footings of the dam wall, the record rainfalls in 2010 and 2011 and the one-in-a-hundred-years flood event in 2012.
Members would be aware that I tabled the statement in the Assembly earlier this week advising that the schedule was now revised to July 2013. The advice also indicated that the costs would be within one per cent of the $405 million budget. ACTEW is hopeful of containing the costs within the $405 million project budget.
I think it is worthwhile noting—and most members again acknowledge this—that the dam wall is in fact complete and that the dam is filling. There are residual works to complete the Stirling basin and site clean-up work, which is anticipated to be completed by July 2013. When the project is complete, it will form an essential part of our water security infrastructure.
In the context of the public hearings last week, I do not think I would be verballing Mr Seselja to suggest that he indicated that he supported the construction of the dam. I am presuming that no-one has changed their position on that, that there is still support for that project.
In relation to the second amendment that I am moving, I am seeking to clarify for the Assembly exactly what the shareholders have requested from the ACTEW Corporation. The review that I refer to in my amendment No 2 is underway, and I am advised it is due to be completed next month.
The third amendment continues to note facts and highlights the actions that the shareholders are taking. So the new subparagraph (1)(f) reconfirms to the Assembly
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video