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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 5 Hansard (1 May) . . Page.. 1273 ..

MR QUINLAN (continuing):

in its balance sheets. It has loans; it services loans. The depreciation and the interest are included, and we get a true cost of the delivery of health costs to the ACT because all the real cost is included. However, if we write off all of the capital investment and debt for Bruce Stadium, what we are doing is understating the cost of running Bruce Stadium. Now, I wonder why a government would want to do that-to understate the operation of a community facility? Quite obviously, the answer to that question is self-evident. That is a rhetorical question.

We would also like to bring to the Assembly's attention the fact that there is a further appropriation in this bill of $1.7 million for Bruce Stadium operation for the year. In another committee, when we were looking at the Bruce Stadium audit report, we asked the Auditor-General for his re-assessment, or his impression of the now overall cost of Bruce Stadium, given that it is another $1.7 million per year to run it. He has stated that his former assessment of the gross cost of the stadium and our Olympic effort of $82 million would be at the bottom of the range. To put it another way, it is likely now that the net present value of what we have blown at Bruce Stadium is probably well in excess of $80 million.

Turning to the Department of Urban Services, we have to say that quite a large lump of money, $3.7 million, was given late in the year to Urban Services. The information provided in hearings to support that $3.7 million and the task was, I have to say, lacking in precision. It did seem that it was really an effort to change the program late in a year. We were concerned that an amount of $3.7 million could be earmarked for expenditure from today onwards and be assured at the same time that due process would be followed; that we would have proper tendering processes and that we would not necessarily be extending existing contracts beyond the level that they should be extended without introducing the competitive element, particularly in current times when there is a bit of a downturn in the economy and there is likely to be a sharpening of competitiveness in those kinds of contracts.

The only other comment I make is about housing. We have had notification from the government that there will be a further $2 million amendment to the bill to provide for the government's boarding house program. What is of concern about that, of course, is that when we came to talk to officers and the minister about that there seemed to be no real information as to what would be the ongoing cost of setting up those things. So it did, again, seem to be a hastily put together program for inclusion in this year's expenditure as opposed to next.

Now, Mr Speaker, I would like to move seamlessly, with an extension of time, to my dissenting report. I must apologise that I probably did drift from time to time from the body of the report. (Extension of time granted.) I believe that bringing down a $45 million supplementary appropriation bill at this time in an election year is a very significant and, I understand, unprecedented event. To my mind it is as much a mini budget as it is a supplementary appropriation. To my mind it has political motivation. It is designed, in fact, to run down the petrol tank, to use the dollars left in the account in this financial year, because the report on this financial year, the bottom line on this financial year, is likely to be the last meaningful financial report that comes to this place before the election. In fact, it will be an unaudited report unless the government makes an effort, as recommended by the Auditor-General, to ensure that an audited report on

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