The debate about the Liberals’ multi-billion dollar Kimberley aqueduct proposal should be democratically resolved by referendum, says Joe Poprzeczny, with voters – not politicians – deciding whether costly Kimberley water is tapped to meet Perth’s needs.
About six months ago two Tenix Group engineers began meeting Liberal MPs, including party leader Colin Barnett, who was deeply impressed by Tenix’s briefing on the shipping of Kimberley water southwards by a coastal aqueduct.
At that point he had two options.
Firstly, he could have raised the issue in his party room and told Coalition MPs he was so impressed by Tenix’s variant of the late 1980s Ernie Bridge ‘pipe dream’ that he wanted to promptly proceed with work if Labor was ousted in February.
The issuing of a press statement would have followed.
His other option – the one he jumped at – was to sit tight, tell no-one outside his inner advisory sanctum, which included Liberal Party state director Paul Everingham, who would oversee the party’s 2005 campaign.
This tiny in-the-know coterie of trusted staffers and party apparachiks was sworn to secrecy since the Tenix/Barnett Kimberley aqueduct plan (KAP) was to be the cutting edge of Mr Barnett’s and their bid to topple Gallop-led Labor.
Naturally, in this case, no press statement would be released.
The choice was therefore between keeping Opposition MPs and the state’s 1.3 million voters in the dark or keeping the state fully informed.
Mr Barnett chose secrecy.
Mr Everingham was then assigned to text messaging Liberal MPs on the night of the televised leaders’ debate to advise that Mr Barnett would commit them to the $2 billion Tenix/Barnett KAP and, under no circumstances, were they to comment on it to the media.
This unprecedented approach to committing taxpayers’ money to such a huge outlay on an unassessed project that may or may not work resembles decision-making in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Joseph Stalin’s Russia – secretly-inspired, unbudgeted and undisclosed until the last minute.
And finally, when the go-ahead was announced, it was a fait accompli.
Such a modus operandi is far removed from the manner in which costly infrastructure projects are generally announced in democratic polities, where feasibility studies, open discussion and assessment take place before the decision to proceed is made.
Although Labor was undoubtedly wrong-footed by Mr Barnett’s announcement the Government quickly responded by leaking information to selected journalists to help blunt the initial generally favourable impact of the Tenix/ Barnett KAP.
In other words Labor adopted a clandestine approach similar to that adopted by Mr Barnett.
The feeling within Government ranks appears to have been that if it’s good enough for the goose then why not also for the gander.
The use of such secretive tactics by both sides in relation to what is the state’s biggest-ever planned infrastructure project, if allowed to continue, threatens to give Western Australia a banana republic reputation and must therefore be brought to an end.
Coalition MPs, if they form government after this weekend, should immediately tell Mr Barnett in unambiguous terms that he can’t have an aqueduct without firstly showing them that he’s adopted prudential financial and managerial procedures.
He should be reminded that secrecy was a key feature of the state’s WA Inc years, and that the practices of those times had cost taxpayers dearly.
Moreover, WA had lost its AAA-rating.
Thereafter the Coalition party room should insist that Mr Barnett announces that, once the required financial, engineering, geological and hydrological studies had been finalised a referendum be called on whether or not to proceed with the Tenix/Barnett KAP.
In other words, the fate of the Tenix/Barnett KAP should be decided by a statewide vote, since it is the citizens of WA who will ultimately be required to meet its cost.
Furthermore, interest groups opposing the Tenix/Barnett KAP should have the cost of printing and distributing their cases publicly funded so that their views and findings are heard on equal terms to Mr Barnett’s.
Consideration should also be given to highlighting in referendum literature alternative and less costly options that could be adopted, including the tapping of the South West Yarragadee aquifer and the reinvigoration of Wellington Dam.
Both sides should present voters with detailed but uncomplicated information that covers estimated per kilolitre cost of water shipped to Perth under the respective options.
The full construction cost of the Tenix/Barnett KAP should be clearly and unambiguously presented.
And there should be included a cost breakdown of the Tenix/Barnett KAP’s major component segments – excavation, lining, number and cost of pumping stations, water treatment plants, annual maintenance, and guarding costs.
Details of the proposed terms and conditions of a tendered construction agreement should also be disclosed.
The aim should be to ensure that voters are presented with as full a costing as is possible and this should be kept concise and not deceptively set out.
Because both Mr Barnett and Labor have resorted to so much secrecy the need has arisen for voters to have a direct say in this project.
If this had happened with the 1980s WA Inc deals and projects it is highly probable that they would not have been embarked upon.
And those that would have been undertaken would have had a greater chance of success because the risk involved would have been debated beforehand.
Consider some of the contradictory claims that the state’s 1.3 million voters have been subjected to over the past fortnight.
Cost of Tenix/Barnett KAP
• $2 billion, according to its proponents and Mr Barnett. (Mr Barnett subsequently admitted the $2 billion was a “ballpark” figure.)
• $5 billion, according to Murdoch academic Professor Phil Jennings, who was convenor of a study commissioned by former Labor water resources minister, Ernie Bridge, on shipping Kimberley water to Perth.
• State Development Minister Clive Brown cites the Australian Water Association as predicting the cost to be $10 billion.
• The AWA has not put a cost on it but says $10 billion for a pipeline is the likely upper limit.
• The cost would be between $2 billion and $10 billion, according to former Labor premier, Brian Burke.
Cost of water delivered to Perth under the Tenix/Barnett KAP
• Tenix Group claimed water would cost $1 to $1.10/kilolitre.
• Mr Barnett says: “The publicly available estimate is $1/kilolitre”.
• A Gallop Government document leaked to a newspaper claimed consumers’ annual water bills would rise by $120 if KAP cost $2 billion, by $389 if it cost $5 billion, and $834 if it cost $10 billion.
• Professor Jennings said cost of water would be between $2 and $4/kilolitre for a $5 billion KAP.
Where does the truth lie?
Mr Barnett can hardly object to adjudication by referendum since he, in the second last week of the campaign, proposed amending the state’s constitution so that the current electoral system that favours rural voters could only be overturned if backed by a majority of electors at referendum.
If it’s good enough to enshrine our barmy electoral laws that favour the conservative side of politics then surely anything less with respect to an infrastructure project that some say will cost well over $2 billion would be foolhardy in the extreme.
