Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 12 Hansard (25 November) . . Page.. 3713 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

The Government could end a lot of uncertainty by simply giving the go-ahead.

Simply giving it the go-ahead, Mr Speaker. What he has done is suggest that the quarry should be approved before there has been a proper business evaluation of that proposal or a risk assessment for that proposal, and we should give it the nod before the voting shareholders have seen the feasibility study or had the opportunity to take advice from public servants about the appropriateness of this arrangement. Obviously Mr Stanhope has assessed all these risks already and has decided that we should go straight ahead.

Now, have we forgotten that taxpayers' money is tied up in these proposals and it is incumbent on the Government not to make these decisions without the proper process? Mr Stanhope says, "Forget about the process. It is not important. It does not matter. Just go straight ahead". This is the person who talked yesterday about the can-do Chief Minister, about just getting on with it, about just doing things and forgetting about the consequences.

Mr Berry: Yes, why this break with tradition?

Mr Hird: Mr Speaker, I cannot hear.

MR SPEAKER: No, and if I cannot hear I will have to ask the Treasurer to repeat the answer in full.

MR HUMPHRIES: He is the same politician who is chairing a committee of this Assembly looking at contracts

Mr Moore: Well, on occasions.

MR HUMPHRIES: Well, on occasions, indeed. That committee is supposed to be examining whether, in respect of the letting of contracts by this Government, proper processes have been used. Now, what does Mr Stanhope think proper process is all about? Is it just giving the go-ahead to a proposal because some people march through the door, probably from the trade union movement, and say, "We like this idea. Give it the tick now. Do not wait. Just go", or is it waiting for a business case to be finished, for there to be a risk assessment, for there to be a report by a probity adviser, for it all to come back to the Government to be put on the table and for the voting shareholders, using due process, to make a decision? Which is the appropriate process, Mr Stanhope?

Of course, Mr Speaker, we have had these contradictory messages from the Labor Party week after week after week. We heard yesterday, for example, in respect of Mr Moore's portfolio, that the details of contract letting by this Government must be conducted at arms length from government. But when Mr Moore, at arms length, presides over a process which awards the contract as project manager to Project Coordination for the hospice, before the coroner reported, the Government is criticised. "You should have interfered", they say.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .