Page 4231 - Week 11 - Thursday, 17 Sept 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
50 per cent and 70 per cent. That would take it up to $246 million. Treasurer, what changed in the 12 days between 18 and 30 May … to bring about that cost increase?
In the estimates Hansard of 18 May, the only reference that my office has been able to find in relation to this from Mr Sullivan was:
In early 2008, the ICRC accepted an estimated cost of $145 million. We are working on an estimate of costs that we warned in that report could be 30 per cent higher than that again.
On 18 May, that was what we were told. In the estimates committee we were told they were working on 30 per cent above $145 million. That is about $188 million, which is the figure that I quoted.
It, therefore, comes back to the question which Mr Corbell answered. The question was: “What changed in the 12 days between 18 and 30 May?” On 18 May, we were told 30 per cent above $145 million. On 30 May, in the Canberra Times, we saw the figure of $246 million. Mr Corbell said, “Nothing changed.” That was his answer. It is his additional answer today.
I would call on the minister to come back and correct the record. He really should do that by the close of business today, having reviewed it, because there is a disparity here. I do not believe that anything in my question was incorrect but if there is something that the minister can point to, I would be happy to correct it.
But from what I could see in the transcript, there was a change between 18 May and 30 May. We were told $188 million, or 30 per cent above $145 million, on 18 May. That was the figure that Actew were working on. On 30 May, it was reported that it was $246 million. Something changed. And we do not know when that changed. We do not know why that changed. But Minister Corbell now needs to come back and actually correct the record and clarify when it became apparent. Was it during the estimates process or was it some other time?
The minister is very defensive on the Cotter Dam blow-out. We do not know who the responsible minister is now because they are going to flip it and flop it, depending on what is convenient at the time, depending on whether they feel they need to defend the Treasurer at any given time or flick it to Mr Corbell.
Of course they want to make it about water policy, where there is absolutely no dispute. Where there is concern and where there is a difference of opinion is why this project has been allowed to blow out so much. Why are we now facing a $363 million price tag for Cotter Dam when we were told originally that it would be in the vicinity of $120 million? A $243 million blow-out, a quarter of a billion dollar blow-out! There are serious questions for the government to answer on that very point.
Some of the questions that we were asking in question time are relevant to that. The government does need to answer exactly how the internal processes are working, how the government is making sure there is not waste in the delivery of this project, how it is ensuring that the governance and the arrangements that are being put in place
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .