Auditor General vindicates pipeline opponents

Sophie Mirabella, the Federal Member for Indi, has welcomed the report tabled in the Victorian Parliament – Planning for Water Infrastructure in Victoria – by the Auditor General, Des Pearson, regarding water policy in Victoria.

“This report clearly demonstrates the arrogant manner in which the Victorian Government went about its ill-fated plans for the north-south pipeline. It vindicates the position taken by so many of us in the north-east against Labor’s dangerous and reckless plot to pipe our water to Melbourne,” Mrs Mirabella said.

“Whilst many have simply given up hope that the Victorian Government might change their mind on this project, it is clear now that due process was not followed, nor was there any consideration of the environmental, social or economic impacts of the pipeline to our region.”

“I commend the Auditor General for speaking openly and fearlessly on this topic. It is now incumbent on Premier Brumby and his Government to listen to the people of the north-east instead of riding roughshod over our rights,” Mrs Mirabella said.

“Rather than me commenting more on this, I have enclosed some quotes from the Auditor General’s which highlight the flawed manner in which this project was developed,” Mrs Mirabella concluded.

Excerpts from the Auditor General’s Report
The level of rigour applying to the components of the plan varies considerably. For example, the food bowl upgrade costs represent the lowest level of rigour and were, at that time, based on a preliminary study by a stakeholder group (the Food Bowl Alliance). (Page 31, Figure 3B)

In some cases the level of precision, at the time the plan was announced, fell below that required within a business case. This should have been mitigated by more explanation of both the stage reached and the process being followed to fully justify strategies and plans before implementation. (Page 32, 3.4.3)

Information provided on the food bowl project did not adequately explain the basis for the water savings estimates. The announcement of the food bowl project in June 2007 was not informed by a rigorous cost analysis and full validation of the water savings estimates. At that time the supporting documentation consisted of the submission by the Food Bowl Alliance advocating the project. We found this documentation did not have the depth of analysis and level of rigour commensurate with a project business case. (3.4.5)

The food bowl steering committee’s final report provided no new information to address stakeholder concerns about the water savings. (Page 34, 3.4.5)