Page 5357 - Week 14 - Thursday, 19 November 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
place. But because of the sensitivity regarding the security system around a prison and the issue of ongoing legal and financial disputes between the parties, we believed that, while there was privilege that would cover those legal and financial issues, it was probably prudent not to publish the evidence, and it was definitely prudent not to publish the evidence in relation to the security system.
Members have contemplated some thousands of pages of contracting information and reports, but at the same time we are not convinced that we received all of the information that was necessary. It was most interesting that, when Mr Hanson made a freedom of information request, he received documents that had not been provided to the committee but that we had asked for in our original request for documents. The government provided the committee with a copy of the documents that had been provided to Mr Hanson.
On a number of occasions we went back and said, “Well, here are categories of documents that we didn’t initially receive; can we have those now?” and they were never provided to us. We received things in dribs and drabs but we still believe that we have not seen the full picture in relation to the AMC.
This is a very important document because it is about learning from the mistakes of the past. The government is about to embark on $100 million worth of health infrastructure refurbishment. There is going to be money spent on forensic units; there is going to be money spent at Fairbairn on emergency services; there is the dam. It is actually quite chilling: if you look at the diagrams in this document about the communication process, some of those diagrams look very similar to the ones that relate to the alliance for the bulk water infrastructure.
There was a deep concern in the committee about the capacity of the government and its agencies to manage large-scale infrastructure programs. There are a number of recommendations in relation to briefing, in relation to project management, whether we should have project management in-house, about communication. They are here for the Assembly to contemplate. Some of them refer to the PAC. So your committee, Madam Assistant Speaker Le Couteur, will have some matters to consider. We hope it is not an onerous task in relation to your work on procurement solutions.
In closing, I would like to pay tribute to the hard work of the secretariat staff—in particular, Hamish Finlay, Derek Abbott and Lydia Chung. This was a very difficult report. I would also like to thank my Assembly colleagues Mary Porter, the deputy chair, and Meredith Hunter, who worked so hard on this. I would like to thank Ms Porter for her contribution, as I think this will be her last report as a member of this committee. I thank her for her work on this report.
MS PORTER (Ginninderra) (4.46): Mrs Dunne referred to a number of incidents that occurred in the remand centre and said that the committee found that the delay caused the incidents. I am thinking of just what she said—
Mrs Dunne: No; I actually corrected myself.
MS PORTER: The committee did not find that the AMC delay was the cause of these incidents. All witnesses said that there was no evidence that there were any
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video