Page 2822 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 29 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I think there is a level of discretion vested in the Speaker to, at times, say to members that it is not possible for them to have more volunteers or for more space to be provided. I think that is part of the Speaker’s responsibility in ensuring that we keep within budget and within the resources of the Assembly.
MR SPEAKER: Ms Porter, a supplementary question?
MS PORTER: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, will you please table any documents relating to any such requests?
MR SPEAKER: Yes, I will.
MR HARGREAVES: Supplementary.
MR SPEAKER: Yes, Mr Hargreaves.
MR HARGREAVES: Mr Speaker, you talked about volunteers and that sort of thing. Which members approached you for additional space or resources for volunteers?
MR SPEAKER: I will take that on notice, Mr Hargreaves.
Budget—capital works
MR HANSON: This question is not for you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development. Minister, in the estimates committee hearings you revealed that $7.5 million is to be spent on the inner north stormwater reticulation network, not, as described in the budget papers, for “a trial of the usage of captured stormwater ... to replace the use of potable water”, but to accommodate changed engineering specifications for the reticulation infrastructure—in this case, to replace pipes that now are considered too small. Minister, why did the budget papers fail to disclose the true purpose of this capital works expenditure?
MR CORBELL: I would have to look at the specific circumstances in relation to the description of the item in the budget papers. What I would say is that the government has been very clear about what the purpose of this funding was and why it was being sought, and has answered a range of extensive questions on the matter through the estimates process, which is, of course, the appropriate area for these issues to be fully ventilated.
MR SPEAKER: Mr Hanson, a supplementary question?
MR HANSON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Minister, given the cost blow-out, have you reassessed the cost-benefit of this project? If no, why not? If yes, what was the outcome and will you table the analysis in the Assembly?
MR CORBELL: I can certainly answer that question, Mr Speaker, and I will provide further advice to the member. But from my recollection, the cost-benefit indicated that the pay-back period was still around a 10-year pay-back period. That was for an asset
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video