Page 2717 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 28 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Ms Gallagher: Health is bigger than that.
MR SMYTH: Single.
Ms Gallagher: It is a single infrastructure project.
MR SMYTH: The children and women’s hospital is a $90 million project. The car park is a $40 million to $50 million project. So I think it is fair to say that it is the largest single infrastructure project. If you tabled an appropriation bill or a bill for your $1 billion health revamp that detailed all the projects, then perhaps you could claim health was bigger, but this is the biggest to date. You can argue at the periphery if you want, but that would be your problem and not mine.
There are 19 recommendations on this. I cannot recall a single issue that the government has ever confronted where you have had 19 recommendations to govern a project. I think the government needs to look very carefully at what the committee is saying. This is a unanimous report. There are a few footnotes where members have dissented or made comments to show that they did not fully agree. I turn to recommendation 6, which states:
The Committee recommends that the ACT Government provide the Legislative Assembly with additional information to support a decision on the Government office building.
Clearly, what the committee is simply saying is we do not have enough information. Indeed, most of the information tended to be contradictory or confusing. That is not a reflection on the committee members. That is a reflection on the way that it was presented. I think there is almost an element of “we are the government; we are here to do what we want” in the way that this project has been approached.
The government’s response is that the recommendation is “noted”. It goes on to state:
The Government has already provided the committee with a wide range of detailed material, and a briefing from the consultants engaged in the development of the project to date. The Government will continue to make information publicly available as the project progresses.
There is the problem: “as the project progresses”. This is the “full steam ahead” Katy Gallagher approach. What the Chief Minister needs to do is take a deep breath and actually listen to what the committee is saying. What the committee is saying is that we believe there are options that the government has not canvassed, whether it be the renewal of existing buildings or whether it be recommendations as in, for instance, recommendation 18 where it is recommended that the government should clearly present its analysis of the build, own, operate—BOO—or build, own, operate, transfer—BOOT—options.
One of the recommendations suggests that the government go back and look at some options that were dismissed very early in the piece. The government basically says that it dismissed them earlier in the piece and that they are not going to reconsider them. I think what the committee is saying to you is that you need to reassess that
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video