Page 320 - Week 01 - Thursday, 16 February 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
is given, perhaps this motion might not be required. But it is important to look at it where there is a significant shift. Let’s face it: this is not something that was just thought of, a little bit of discussion occurred and it all went away. This is a significant proposal—probably over almost three years, certainly over two budgets. Something like $7 million has now been expended. You have to call into account the government process and whether that money will be wasted.
What we want to know is this, given the hype about this decision by the former Chief Minister, the current Chief Minister and the current Treasurer about how essential and how important this was and how it should go forward, and the disregard by the previous Chief Minister, the current Chief Minister and the current Treasurer of the suggestions that PAC made. PAC made some very solid suggestions in a very good report, and an interim report, because we thought it was important to get those suggestions into the public realm. But the government just said no. So the government has not treated the public accounts committee with a great deal of respect on this matter to date.
Indeed, the estimates committee reiterated those same proposals and said that the government needs to give due regard to what PAC said—(1), (2), (3). We still do not have an all-of-government office strategy. The documentation that PAC requested has still not been forwarded to PAC. And there still has not been an adequate discussion of that documentation in this place.
Suddenly we get a backflip. On the day after a near riot at the Lobby on the Australia Day long weekend, on the actual weekend itself—there it is. The government will bring out the trash: “We will dash that idea. We will blame the former Chief Minister.” Apparently nobody had the guts to stand up to him in cabinet when he was there, but they will diss him when he is gone.
That is the problem. That is why we put it on the paper in this way. You did the Assembly the courtesy of reading the 246A, but it covers a different set of criteria.
I am happy to give both Mr Hargreaves and Ms Le Couteur leave to speak again to say that, as members of PAC, they agree to (a) through (f), and we will include those criteria in what we have said. But those criteria currently do not exist. That was the reason why there was a need for a different motion, and I think it is a very valid reason.
There is now this litany. Ms Gallagher said before the last election, “All our plans are on the table”—except, apparently, for the secret plan to purchase Calvary hospital. If that had proceeded, it would have cost the taxpayers of the ACT $77 million or more—a drop in the bucket, really, $77 million! It is just $77 million of taxpayers’ money for no improved health outcome. Again, it is poor process, poor strategy, with a lack of detail and real failure to have due regard for taxpayers’ money in that case. If Mr Hanson had not stood up and asked the hard questions, that would have gone through for absolutely not one iota of extra health outcome.
The same can be said of this process for the great big government office building. The failure of process here is extraordinary. Upon request from a committee, we got an A4
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video