Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 7 Hansard (30 June) . . Page.. 1872 ..
MR RUGENDYKE (continuing):
My colleague Mr Osborne has been consistent with his belief that he would like to view the Auditor-General's performance audit on Bruce Stadium. This was also my initial preference - to wait until the Auditor-General reported before dealing with a motion of this magnitude. The Auditor-General is going through all the evidence with a fine toothcomb, and it appears sensible to wait for him to release his findings. I am impressed with the thorough nature of the Auditor-General's objectives.
Looking at the legal aspects of the case, it is clear that the process by which government has spent taxpayers' money was flawed. As has been stated earlier today, section 6 of the Financial Management Act reads:
No payment of public money shall be made otherwise than in accordance with an appropriation.
Mr Speaker, it is extremely difficult for me to come to terms with the fact that the Treasurer was unaware that roughly one-third of the original budget of the Bruce Stadium redevelopment had not been appropriated in accordance with section 6. I said publicly earlier this month that I had a problem with the Government's lack of attention to detail with the Bruce Stadium financial transactions. The Chief Minister's Department should have been more familiar with the Financial Management Act. The Government has set the standard for financial management with this Act. Its predecessor, the Audit Act 1989, had criminal sanctions for poor financial management. The Financial Management Act did away with criminal sanctions, so if this motion succeeds the penalty must be political. We will, however, have to assess the degree of culpability and appropriate sanctions. In the ACT we have a minority government. The reason the community has supported a minority government is that it enhances accountability.
Mr Speaker, the money which had been appropriated under the capital works program to see the project through until June 1998 ran out in December 1997. The Government knew that they were out of money with more than six months remaining in the financial year. In a letter from Bruce Stadium Redevelopment to OFM on 22 December 1997 the project officer wrote:
Invoices are now being received for Stage 1a and 1b of construction and have already exceeded the budget allocation for 1997-98 of $5.558m. As per Cabinet Decision Number 6543, Cabinet has agreed that the Central Financing Unit will provide funds for the full redevelopment until private sector financing is in place. The estimated shortfall of funds at present is $700,000. This should be sufficient funds until the end of January, 1998.
The project officer also wrote:
In order for the construction deadline of December 1998 to be achieved, construction contracts for Stage 1a and 1b have been let and are well underway. The let value of these contracts is approximately $11.2m. Stage 2, the redevelopment of the eastern Grandstand, is about to be let for around $9.9m.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .