Page 3823 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 4 December 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
We have been assured at estimates in the past that the territory government strictly adheres to these standards in terms of accounting. It is a matter which is on the record. Whilst there may be only four judges affected, I think it is a shameful reflection on the administation of his department that they in fact have dropped the ball in this area. It is worth public noting, and that is what our committee has resolved to do.
In terms of other areas, I want to speak in the remaining time about increases in construction costs. I know Mr Seselja will get onto this. Two of the appropriations in the bill have been due to cost overruns for capital projects. The bill provides for $2.54 million in capital expenditure to complete the Alexander Maconochie Centre, and this additional cost overrun is on top of a previous reduction in the scope of the project which saw the number of beds in the facility substantially reduced. Thus, at the end of the project, it appears that we will have a substantially smaller facility for more money than was first budgeted.
This is how the minister tried to get around the fact, by saying, “The budget is fixed and firm and we will not overrun it.” In fact, they are now overrunning it and they have reduced the project. Of course, on all counts, he has failed.
The bill also provides $1.42 million in capital expenditure for cost overruns in the construction of Harrison primary school. The cost overruns include landscaping work which will be almost $1 million over budget. Thankfully, these overruns in cost pale in comparison to the GDE. However, this does appear to be an area which is an ongoing problem for the government because of their failure to lock in appropriately in contracts that inflation costs should be taken into account, not just variations initiated by client. But it seems the territory government is a poor negotiator when it comes to settling contracts in terms of keeping within budgets.
In terms of ACTION—unfortunately, Mr Hargreaves will limit what I can say—I know Mr Pratt will say something. I have to say that the performance of Mr Hargreaves is now becoming something of interest both in estimates and again in public accounts. The way in which he sought to berate members of the committee in their legitimate questioning, I thought, was appalling. I was almost of a mind to make mention of it in the report because I am sure my fellow committee members were equally appalled by the aggressive and uncooperative attitude. I would urge the Chief Minister to try to address this because it is doing him no favours in terms of the appropriate forums of this parliament.
ACTION, of course, has seen a sudden catch-up in outlay of funds. Whether this will satisfy community outrage over the shambolic effort in relation to ACTION’s timetables, we will wait and see. But any attempt to improve public transport in a sensible direction is something that I would be supportive of.
I am concerned at the issues of accountability. There are examples here of where the Assembly has not been given much regard at all in terms of a method of scrutinising the government’s operations, and those concerns are now on the public record.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (11.12): On the whole, the appropriation bill was very welcome for many of its items of expenditure. But I note that in the tabling speech Mr Stanhope said very strongly:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .