Page 1442 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 11 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
recommendation, at paragraph 3.5, the committee is suggesting that a modest increase in the capital works budget may be fiscally responsible. We ask that the Government consider that recommendation in the framing of its budget proposals.
An equally important recommendation is recommendation 5, at paragraph 3.15 of the report - that the concept of through life cost liability be applied to the ACT capital works program, beginning with the program in 1993-94. The reason the committee has arrived at that position is quite simple. We believe that it is appropriate that this Assembly, and indeed the Government, have an estimation of the total actual cost for undertaking any particular capital works through the life of that asset. We have arrived at this position because of a recommendation in a submission to the committee by an individual member, suggesting that a particular new construction process for bus-shelters, while being more cost-efficient in the initial construction, might lead to additional cost down the track as far as repair, service and maintenance are concerned. Following extensive discussion within the committee, the committee unanimously arrived at recommendation 5, at paragraph 3.15.
There are a number of other substantial recommendations, and I will touch briefly on some of them. We believe that the Federal Government has left an asset base in Canberra sadly lacking in repair and maintenance. That was brought to our attention by the significant cost to the maintenance budget of a stormwater drain in Tuggeranong. That stormwater drain had been constructed for less than 15 years but now requires considerable outlays by the ACT Government because the asset was not adequately maintained during the Federal Government's stewardship of assets in the ACT. We also suggest that a minimum period of 10 weeks be given to the PDI Committee for consideration of the capital works program, to ensure that there is adequate public consultation.
The format in which this report appears will be consistently the format in which such reports appear in future. I draw to your attention that this is the first time in the history of this Assembly that a printed and published report such as this has been the basis for the presentation of the capital works program investigation by the PDI Committee. We were able to do that because of the sterling work undertaken by Greg McIntosh, the secretary to the committee. I place on record on behalf of the committee my appreciation for the sterling work Greg has undertaken and for the dedication he shows to ensuring that the committee is properly briefed and that the submissions that are forthcoming, particularly during this program but also at other times in the committee's work, are attended to and given appropriate weight. I cannot sing Mr McIntosh's praises highly enough, and I personally would be disappointed if Mr McIntosh were ever to decide to seek other employment.
That is a brief overview of this report. It contains a run-down of the specific programs dealt with in the capital works budget. It also attaches as appendices a list of written submissions, a list of witnesses, and the draft capital works program for 1992-93.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .