Page 4932 - Week 13 - Thursday, 12 November 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
communicated to government in the same month that the total project cost would amount to $145 million. One has to ask—indeed, this goes to the core of the issue in many ways—why did Actew not tell the full story at that point? The report also identifies key limitations within Actew’s planning process on the project, and that included the fact that a rigorous review of alternative options for the enlarged Cotter Dam was not undertaken. That is on page 32 of the Deloitte report. I find that a particularly concerning finding from Deloitte.
Another finding from Deloitte on page 33 was that the release of public information around the preliminary costing with limited caveats regarding the preliminary nature of the estimate may lead to public challenges as the project progresses. I think it is fair to say that that has become quite true, and we have not even yet seen the first sod turned on the project. Deloitte also notes that the Bulk Water Alliance did not fully appreciate the cost of the project and relied on the costings provided by Actew, which were insufficient. It also notes the Bulk Water Alliance only recently had the design of the dam well developed enough to properly understand the cost. All of these are very concerning findings.
We took the opportunity of having those documents at our briefing with Actew and asked some very detailed questions. It was after receiving this briefing and getting a far better understanding of the process that had been undertaken to determine the costs of the project, as well as delving into some of the numbers that made up the overall project cost increase, that the Greens decided the best option for reviewing the cost of the Cotter Dam and whether or not that cost was justified was to seek a reference to the Independent Competition and Regulatory Commission, the ICRC. There is no doubt that with his familiarity with the structure of Actew water security projects and the Cotter Dam project in particular, the independent commissioner is extremely well placed to be able to assess the costs increase most effectively.
On Friday last week we wrote to the minister formally telling him that we would be introducing a motion in the Assembly this week, asking to take action to refer the issue of the Cotter Dam cost blow-out to the ICRC. Mr Seselja has mentioned that letter this morning, and I am interested to note that, in his concerns about lack of transparency, he failed to mention that the Greens actually gave him a copy of that letter. Mr Seselja was well aware of what was going on, and he too could have written to the minister, if he had wished, expressing the ideas he had for the terms of reference. But that would actually require him sitting down and doing some work. I want to put that on the record, because Mr Seselja failed to mention that.
At that point, the minister indicated to me that he would move to undertake this referral, irrespective of the motion. He spoke about it already this morning, and that referral will be formally signed off today. I welcome the fact that the minister took this up. Contrary to Mr Seselja’s comments, it simply reflects well on the minister that he was able to acknowledge that this was a decent way to go forward; it was a good idea that nobody had brought it into the public debate before. He was able to accept that the Greens had made a valid and useful contribution to the debate, and that this provided us with a pathway that would give us an independent, expert assessment of the costs of the Cotter Dam. Rather than sitting in a committee politicking about it, we can actually refer it to a body that has the skills, the expertise and the experience to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video