Page 3547 - Week 12 - Thursday, 20 September 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
rather than apples with apples; and/or is this another case of the Opposition being rather careless with its facts?
MR DUBY: I thank Mr Jensen for the question. There was, indeed, a series of papers presented to the Follett Labor Government last year with respect to estimates for the provision of swimming facilities in Tuggeranong. These estimates were based on varying options for swimming facilities ranging from a basic outdoor 50-metre pool at Erindale to a fully indoor swimming complex at the Tuggeranong town centre; and, within this range of options, varying costings were put forward.
Initial estimates - not based on any design or site analysis - from ACT Public Works in November last year indicated that costs could range from $1.33m for the outdoor pool to $5.15m for an enclosed swimming facility in the town centre. None of these options included ancillary facilities to raise revenue to offset recurrent expenditure. The then Deputy Chief Minister, Mr Whalan, appointed a community-based committee to assess the need for swimming facilities and recommend options to meet those needs.
That committee reported on 24 November and recommended that a range of facilities be included in the swimming complex, with the town centre as the preferred site. It was also agreed that the advice of a consultant should be sought to recommend on siting, costs and the combination of components to ensure that the proposed facility could meet its recurrent costs.
Based on this information - and whilst Mrs Grassby was still the Minister for Housing and Urban Services - her department raised the estimate for the pool to $5m. When this Government came into office it followed up the work of the committee and appointed consultants to cost the options. These options were to ensure the facility would meet its recurrent costs. The consultant's report was finalised in mid-1990 and established costs ranging from $6.7m at Erindale to $10.2m in the town centre. The proposals costed included ancillary facilities to ensure the complexes would recover operational costs.
Mrs Grassby is again - as Mr Jensen said - comparing apples with oranges when she talks about proposals considered by the Follett Government and costs estimates forecast by this Government. She is also talking about preliminary, pre-designed estimates as opposed to proper assessment of costs based on draft sketch plans. It is, I think, another example of this Government's commitment at least to fully examine the costs of proposals before committing expenditure, to ensure full value for money - something which, of course, those opposite were never able to do.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .