Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I was not in any way suggesting that of the minister. In fact I flagged to the minister the areas in which I would be raising questions, so I just want to make it clear that there is absolutely no suggestion that I have any criticism of the minister whatsoever about this. I did have a brief discussion with her previously.

Can I just retrace what I put in my second reading debate contribution with respect to this bill. Victoria’s own Auditor-General, Mr Des Pearson, has been critical of the project—the north-south pipeline, or the Sugarloaf Pipeline, as it has been called—and he has cast doubt over the anticipated water savings the project will yield. In his report Planning for water infrastructure in Victoria, released on 9 April 2008, he concluded that the level of information provided to the community on water supply projects has been inadequate and needs to be improved. Specifically he noted:

… the processes used to develop the Victorian water plan fell short of the standard the Department applied when developing the white paper and the Central Region strategy.

He further criticised the Victorian water plan for:

… widely varying levels of rigour around the plan’s costs and expected water savings benefits.

My question to the minister, given the criticisms by the Victorian Auditor-General, the very trenchant criticisms of this project and the criticisms as to the lack of rigour around the plans, costs and expected water savings benefits, is: what role can the Commonwealth play to ensure that there is a real level of rigour? Reflecting on the criticisms by the Victorian Auditor-General in terms of the water savings asserted by the Victorian government, given this report by the Victorian Auditor-General, what positive, constructive role can the Commonwealth play to ensure that there is a level of accountability with respect to the assertions made by the Victorian government as to anticipated water savings?