Page 3127 - Week 07 - Thursday, 1 July 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
know the volunteers are pleased, with the decision to replace the old facilities, largely due to pressure from the Canberra Liberals.
There is some interest in the new sheds. We asked some detailed questions about the new sheds for Jerrabomberra and Rivers. The total cost for these two sheds is $2.27 million, but there are some interesting components in these sheds. A number of the volunteers from both the Rivers and the Jerrrabomberra brigades have said to me, “These are the building the education revolution fire sheds.” This is the standard: the money is just being thrown away. And they are very concerned. They want new sheds. They want good facilities. They want appropriate facilities. But a number of them have said to me, “Boy, there is a lot of money being spent here.”
When you get the detail, the provision for preliminaries and margins is $0.253 million and the provision for contingencies across the projects is $0.159 million. A secondary provision for contingencies, including project management, is $0.409 million. (Second speaking period taken) That is, a total of $0.821 million, or 36 per cent of the total project costs, is attributed predominantly to margins and contingencies. I am not sure what the industry standard is for these sorts of buildings, but my inquiries to various groups around town suggested that several per cent might be added—two, three, four or five per cent might be added to a project, but when I read these numbers to them they just laughed and said, “Money for jam”; not monergy, but “Money for jam”.
So how can you have so many provisions? I think it behoves the minister to explain why so much is seen as predominantly margins and contingencies. These provisions do appear excessive, especially when the projects are not particularly complex in either design or construction. I mean, these are straightforward construction techniques. There is a flat slab, and they are basically tin sheds with big roller doors. Inside, yes, we do need showers and the toilet amenities that people deserve. We need training rooms. But it does need to be asked whether the taxpayer is getting value for money with these projects.
Then there is the mysterious relocation project, Madam Assistant Speaker. There is a lot of mystery about this project. First and foremost, we have Mr Corbell’s contradictions on the project. At one point in May’s estimates, the minister was asked when he had received the report:
MR SMYTH: When did you receive that report?
Mr Corbell: I have not yet received the final copy of that report.
MR SMYTH: You have not received a final copy of the report?
Mr Corbell: No.
However, the minister on ABC Radio on the morning of 31 May this year said, “Well I was briefed on the station relocation feasibility study final report around the beginning of 2009, and that was then something that I looked at very closely.”
How can you not receive a report but look at it very closely? It is beyond me. But then further on, just a couple of lines later, Minister Corbell also said in the same interview, “One of the main problems that emerged, once we received the report”—so, “We are
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video