Page 1761 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 7 June 2022
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
the Auditor-General. It must. Mr Steel gave his response and pretty much said, “Parton’s a nong because he does not seem to understand how business cases work.” How could I possibly have such little understanding of how government works? I can only assume that this is also a criticism of the Auditor-General, because that was very, very clearly his recommendation in that report.
In other attacks from Mr Steel, what Mr Steel is saying today is that anyone who questions the process of delivering a new hospital is against nurses, pretty much—anyone who asks any question about the delivery of any project. What he is saying in here is that anyone who questions procurement associated with the building of a new police station is against police. It is ludicrous. He used the word “loopy”; I would just go with “juvenile”. It is a juvenile attack on us, painting us as some sort of anti-tram warriors. It reeks of desperation and of a minister who is out of his depth and has nowhere else to go but to hurl claims like that over the chamber.
It is no surprise that the government do not want everyone to see what they are doing with this major project. We continue to share the enormous concerns outlined by the Auditor-General. His concerns were pretty fundamental and somewhat devastating. They had a very big impact on this side of the chamber, to the extent that, on 7 October last year, members would recall that we moved a motion calling on the Assembly to establish a select committee to oversight this project and report back to the Assembly on a biannual basis.
Mr Steel did not warm to that, which was a surprise to me. He did not warm to it, that chance for transparency, but he did agree, in his amendment to the motion, to have the stage 2A project referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. When the ACT Auditor-General gave evidence at the PAC hearing on 12 May, he continued to express serious concerns over the business case and economic analysis for the light rail stage 2A project. If anything, his language, on occasions, was a bit more forthright during the PAC hearing. His observations included significant cost omissions, overstatement of benefits, lack of an assurance process, lack of attention paid to the economic analysis, lack of professionalism, withholding data that should have been made available, and lack of transparency. If you have not, dear members, do yourselves a favour and please go back and read the transcript or even watch the video of the PAC hearing for yourself and reach your own conclusions.
There is a bit of deja vu here, isn’t there, because the issues of governance and analysis raised by the Auditor-General on light rail are not new. They are not new. You have only got to browse some of his previous work to see why. Back in 2018 the Auditor-General reviewed the sale of block 30 in Dickson and observed things such as that the transaction did not achieve value for money; there was a high risk that the Planning and Development Act was breached and open, transparent and contestable process was not achieved; significant inadequacies in the tender process; and no evidence that the economic benefits were ever assessed. It does not really matter because it is your money. It is your money; it is not theirs. You have paid your rates.
In relation to the purchase of properties to the west of Canberra, the Auditor-General’s report suggested that probity was lacking; there was inadequate clarity and documentation; value for money tests were not followed; and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video