Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 5 Hansard (3 May) . . Page.. 1422 ..

Mr Moore: There was a $344 million operating loss under Labor.

MR QUINLAN: Keep going. I am happy to have that circulated, too. In relation to Bruce Stadium, there is a writing off of debt. Effectively, that money has all gone. It has all gone under the banner, as described by the Chief Minister, of a community facility; yet all our other community facilities are not written off. So we have a different accounting treatment for the Bruce Stadium than we do for our other community facilities. Why? It is because we are embarrassed about the bottom line and we are embarrassed about the real cost of delivering that community facility, if it is one-or have we changed our mind?

Mr Moore interjected earlier about the $344 million. There is a consistency here at least. The accounting treatments used back then are different from the accounting treatments used today and you get quite exaggerated differences between then and today as a direct function of that; but do not let the truth get in the way of a good line.

Mr Moore: And don't listen to the Auditor-General.

MR QUINLAN: I will tell you this much, Mr Moore: the Auditor-General will be appearing before the Estimates Committee to discuss this topic in detail. In relation to Bruce Stadium, we have an increase in the operating costs of $1.7 million per year. Speaking of the Auditor-General, his assessment of the present cost of Bruce Stadium and the Olympics was $82 million. Add to that the continuous stream of $1.7 million and we are up and away; we are well over the $82 million barrier. He has not done his calculations. I asked him about that in committee and he said in his understated manner that $82 million has to be at the bottom end of the possible range of any evaluation now, which does imply a much greater expenditure than just $1.7 million if you look at it as a stream in perpetuity.

There are not many other issues that I want to address in any great detail. I am concerned that all of a sudden we are pulling out-I presume that we have not done anything about it yet because this bill is yet to be passed-$3.7 million at Urban Services for spending between now and the end of the financial year under works contracts. We have been advised that due process in terms of calling tenders for that will not occur: there will be an extension of or variation to existing contracts. That is a bit concerning.

We would think that for expenditures heading towards $4 million, given the tightening economy, given that we are post-Olympics and post-GST and given that we are heading for the doldrums possibly, except maybe for the government's assessment, there would have been sharper pencils out there amongst the contractors. We do want to register some concern that we are really trying to spend as much money as we can and trying to look like we are doing as much as we can so late in a financial year which is all about an election. I have to say that in some cases I have seen very nice white lines being painted on pretty crappy roads. That is a quick way of making the place look a bit better and of giving the impression of improvement and activity. I would like to think that things are a bit more structured than that.

It is a bit disturbing to have an urgent need to spend $2 million on the boarding house program only to find when the minister and his officers come to committee that they do not know what that implies for ongoing costs. The government has actually decided to

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .