Page 4936 - Week 13 - Thursday, 12 November 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
to the people of the ACT, he had already backflipped. He had written to Mr Corbell and said basically, “Dear Simon, I think this would be a really good idea but it is a bit difficult. How about you do it for me instead?” He said, “As I have indicated, the Greens intend to introduce a motion; however, I understand it is possible for you to make that referral to review the price determination without the need of an Assembly motion.” He did not want to bring it back here to scrutinise the terms of reference.
Really, what has happened is that Shane and Simon have cooked up a deal. Whether we are a knave or a fool, it does not matter; you have created a situation where you have created a secret deal. It was only yesterday afternoon, when we received a copy of the letter that Mr Rattenbury wrote to Mr Corbell last week, that the Liberal opposition became aware that this matter was not going to come to the Assembly for discussion and debate.
These terms of reference which the minister says he is going to refer formally late in the day start with the spectacular words “is the expenditure prudent?” That is a really probing term of reference. The first term of reference to be decided is whether it is prudent.
Let us put all the rhetoric aside. We all agree that this dam should be built. We believe that the government should have acted a lot sooner than it did. We believe that the government has been playing catch-up on this issue for a long time. The issue is not about whether it is prudent to spend money on building the Cotter Dam. The issue is about the rate at which the cost of the Cotter Dam has blown out. In his presentation speech, Mr Seselja talked about that—the 120 which became 145, which became 188, which became 245, which became 363—and then the variations that we see in various places about the target out-turn costs. There are figures everywhere. It is a dog’s breakfast.
We have constantly been told by Actew that there were unforeseen costs that they could not control. These were construction costs. I would like to deal with construction costs. The opposition has been advised in relation to construction costs by people who actually know about major capital work constructions. We have been advised about the rate at which costs increased over the last 12 months or so. There have been cost increases, but they are cost increases of less than 10 per cent for a whole range of issues—labour, concrete, the fixing of rebar and the cost of hiring a backhoe, an excavator, a dozer, a truck, a roller or a grader. All of those things—yes, they have gone up, but they have gone up essentially in line with CPI, or perhaps WPI.
Two things did go up quite a bit in 2008: the cost of diesel and the cost of buying rebar, the metal that you would need to put in a dam. Actually, there is not very much metal in this dam, because it is a roller-compacted concrete dam. However, since the middle of last year, both those costs have plummeted—absolutely plummeted. In the case of diesel, they are down almost 20 per cent below where they were at the beginning of 2008. The only thing that has continued to rise in that time, to 140 per cent of its original cost, is the cost of the dam.
I would like to table a graph which outlines the rate at which construction costs have risen in comparison with the dam costs. I think it will be very instructive for the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video