Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 2 Hansard (9 March) . . Page.. 407 ..
MR KAINE
(continuing):Reference has already been made to the Woodies tennis tournament. Now, this is a beauty. It was a hot rush of blood to the head decision by somebody that is not even a part of the ACT Government, and yet it translated into a cost to the taxpayer, I understand, of about $50,000, and it translated into a cost to ACT Forests, for heaven's sake, of some $10,000 as a contribution. Those are only small sums of money, but they are indicative of a state of mind by this Government that you can make any ad hoc, off the top of the head decision, and somewhere you will find the money for it. At the same end of the scale, although a little more serious perhaps, was the Feel the Power of Canberra campaign. I do not know what that cost the taxpayer - maybe the final sums are not in yet - but it was another one of those off the top of the head decisions which, from my experience, was not supported by almost everybody that I spoke to, and yet the decision was made, it went ahead, and there was a cost to the ACT taxpayer.
Of a slightly different order of magnitude were brilliant decisions like the Hall/Kinlyside development fiasco. What was the net result of that? That cost the taxpayer in excess of $100,000 - again, a disregard for the normal processes through which governments ought to go to commit and spend public money, an indication of a state of mind that anything goes. At a much higher order of magnitude was the Bruce Stadium redevelopment. That was originally to cost $27m, with about $12m in round figures coming from the ACT taxpayer and the other $15m in round figures coming from the three sporting clubs that were going to benefit - the Brumbies, the Raiders and the Cosmos. How that has changed today. We have a public servant telling us that the cost has blown out by $5m and we have the Chief Minister, on a television program within the last couple of weeks, putting the figure at $34m, which is a $7m blow-out. Who is right, the public servant or the Chief Minister? We do not know. We still do not know. There are strong rumours around that there is yet to be capitalised the cost of consultants' fees and interest, which would push the total cost at this stage closer to $40m, and there might be some requirement for the Government to guarantee that.
What happened to the responsibility of the Brumbies, the Cosmos and the Raiders? That responsibility now, we are told by the Chief Minister, falls on some nebulous body called the private sector. But what are the mechanisms by which the private sector is to generate this money? We do not know. I might add that in this connection people are making much of the hospital blow-out. I would submit that even a $5m blow-out in a $27m project is far more significant than a $10m blow-out in the hospital budget, and yet this is getting very little public attention and very little response from the Government. In fact, what we have got seems to be a continuing attempt on the part of the Government to cover and obscure all of this issue. If you do not believe me, ask any member of the media who has been trying to get the facts from the Government and is finding that he or she is unable to do so. This is a real time bomb. It could well cost the taxpayer millions of dollars at the end of the day. I would like some assurance from the Chief Minister that that is not the case and I would like to know the details of the arrangements by which the private sector is going to pick up this bill.
Another one of that order of magnitude is the Acton-Kingston land swap. When the Chief Minister first put this one on the table it was a "good deal". It is interesting that Mr Moore, who finds something more important to be done in London at the moment than to be here dealing with his ministerial duties, totally opposed that land swap deal.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .