Page 496 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 20 February 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR JENSEN: It is not very specific, and that is one of the problems. It would also seem that Mr Moore proposes to make this an open-ended inquiry, with no date for reporting. What then does Mr Moore see as the timetable for that inquiry and what is the purpose of such inquiry if there is no timetable? If it is to assist in the process of developing the budget, I would have thought Mr Moore would have put on some sort of timetable. Clearly, Mr Moore has not thought through that aspect of the proposal. My colleague Mr Kaine has already made a number of comments on parts 4 and 5 of Mr Moore's motion.
Let me now turn briefly to some comments and suggestions Mr Moore made in relation to evidence of overestimating. I was pleased to note that the Leader of the Opposition commented in relation to Mr Moore's failure, if you like, to produce any sort of damning evidence of what he was suggesting in his motion:
the practice in the ACT Government of over-estimating when preparing estimates for the budget;
Clearly, by saying that Mr Moore is making the clear implication that that is a practice that is widespread. I do not think Mr Moore has provided any evidence for that. He has put up a couple of proposals. Even Ms Follett has suggested that Mr Moore is just flying a bit of a kite on this one. My colleague Mr Duby will be addressing the specific issues relating to Mr Moore's comments on those two areas he spoke about.
In closing my remarks, I would like to draw the attention of members to the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee's report on, and investigation into, the capital works program. I recall that, during that process and series of questions, the issue was raised of what may happen to the money that was set aside if there were problems associated with a particular project.
In this case the question is related to the forward design program. What would happen if the money that had been allocated to a forward design program for the project was not used because, for whatever reason, the project was put on hold? We were advised, I recall, that there was still a process that reorganised and reconsidered the allocation of those projects within that forward design program. I seem to recall also that some of the recommendations in the planning committee's report on this area referred to the need for continued community consultation, not only at the time the various capital works programs were being established but also at the time they came back for consideration. There was a recommendation of that committee that comment on the extent of community consultation be added to the criteria used in preparing the list of projects for the final works program, and so on.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .