Page 2325 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 29 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In May 2003 … the Government approved overall funding of $26.7 million to upgrade the communications systems of the Emergency Services Bureau (the New Radio Project). There was no documentary evidence that a detailed business case supporting this funding decision was prepared and considered by Cabinet.
Chief Minister, why did you and your ministerial colleagues approve the expenditure of more than $26 million on this communications project without there being a business case prepared for the project?
MR STANHOPE: The Minister for Police and Emergency Services is responsible for this area of government administration. I ask him to take the question.
MR CORBELL: I thank Mr Stefaniak for the question. It is quite clear that the Auditor-General has identified a range of problems with the administration of this project. As Mr Stefaniak rightly identifies, one of those is the documentation the former authority failed to provide to cabinet. It is important to stress that cabinet was acting on the advice, and receiving the advice, of its emergency service officials and it was in the context of a newly appointed emergency services commissioner. Let us remember that there was unanimous agreement that there should be an independent emergency services commissioner and an independent authority to advise government on the resources, the projects and other material that was needed for the emergency services to do its job.
Mr Smyth: It did not exist in May 2003.
MR SPEAKER: Order, Mr Smyth!
MR CORBELL: The Emergency Services Authority advised cabinet that a global amount was required for upgrade of communications systems. The government agreed with that advice and provided the funding. The real failure here is that the development of that project was not properly tested through a business case.
Mr Smyth: Did cabinet ask for one?
MR CORBELL: The trial of the project was approved by the emergency services after only eight days, in effect. Let us remember, the government signed off on a four-month trial—
Mr Pratt: Or the Emergency Services Bureau.
MR SPEAKER: Mr Smyth and Mr Pratt, no more interjections, please.
MR CORBELL: And after eight days the former commissioner and other senior management in the then authority indicated that the trial was a success—after eight days. Clearly that was inadequate and inappropriate.
Mr Smyth: Point of order. Under standing order 118 (a), the answer has to be concise and confined to the subject matter of the question. The question relates to cabinet decisions in May 2003, when the emergency services authority did not exist. Would you ask the minister to confine his answer according to the standing orders?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .