Page 2940 - Week 11 - Thursday, 22 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Stevenson: $900,000.
MR CONNOLLY: $890,000. That was made up of a number of extraordinary claims for new works, like new carpet, new boiler, new PA system, new fire detection, new evacuation system - $164,000 worth of works which, as Mr Wood said, have not been done. The answer that was given in the house last year was $500,000 plus $100,000, so $600,000. The figure that came out in the Estimates Committee of the actual cost was $653,000 or $657,000. So, we were out - - -
Mr De Domenico: So, the Chief Minister was about 25 per cent out.
MR CONNOLLY: No, no; we were out by some 10 per cent on that estimation. That is within the bounds of the estimates for a new proposal. Your argument is this; that there was a preliminary estimate - - -
Mr De Domenico: That you have misled the house. That is the argument.
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr De Domenico, I ask you to stop interjecting.
MR CONNOLLY: Your argument is this: There was a preliminary estimate from a department of some $900,000; we gave a $600,000 figure; therefore we misled the house. Well, Madam Speaker, mea culpa too, because let me tell you a story about the Ainslie Transfer Station - another complete muck-up of the Alliance Government.
Mr Stevenson: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I was most interested in listening to the detail of the debate on the school closures. Perhaps the Minister would continue along that line and continue informing us. I think there is a lot to look at.
MADAM SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Please continue, Mr Connolly.
MR CONNOLLY: What I am doing, Madam Speaker, is explaining the process of government, which should be interesting to Mr Stevenson - he has never been in government, and is unlikely to be in government - but which you lot should understand - - -
Mr Kaine: I take a point of order, Madam Speaker. You did rule earlier that Mr Humphries could not proceed on an associated line of questioning because the Chief Minister objected to it. It is equally true, then, that Mr Connolly should not be introducing new material. Let us address the issue that the Chief Minister thinks is the issue, and let us have equality on each side of the house.
MR CONNOLLY: No; I took the point of order and I lost.
MADAM SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr Kaine, for that point of order. It was in fact in relation to Mr Cornwell's speech, when some point of relevance was being raised. What I said was that I would await the development of his speech before I ruled, and I allowed him to proceed. So, Mr Kaine, I would like to allow Mr Connolly to proceed.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .