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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 8 Hansard (8 August) . . Page.. 2582 ..

Answer from the minister:

The AFP estimates enabling costs of $14.5 million.

That is 100 per cent growth in two months. The third question was:

How do we go about the budgeting?

The minister said:

The ACT provides $67.548 million for ACT regional policing in excess of $7 million. The $67.548 million is attributed to the enabling costs.

In paragraph (c) the minister says that $7 million is budgeted to pay for the enabling costs. In paragraph (b) he says the cost is going to be $14.5 million. Two months earlier he told us the whole lot was going to be $7 million. My question is: why did the minister make a $7 million error in March? Where is the extra $7.5 million going to come from?

MR SMYTH: There were ongoing negotiations with the AFP. After we signed the new contract for the delivery of services, additional work was done. As the work was done, the figures changed.

MR HARGREAVES: I ask a supplementary question. Did the new figure, a doubling in the space of two months, come from the $165,000 consultant's report? Will you table a copy of that report, please?

MR SMYTH: I am not aware where the figure of $14 million that Mr Hargreaves quotes came from. I will check for him and give him the details.

Mr Humphries: I ask that further questions be placed on notice.

Public Housing

MR MOORE: Yesterday I took a question on notice on housing from Mr Wood about a property in Oxley. The tenancy of the property ended on 8 June 2001. ACT Housing inspected the property and found that it had been left by the tenant in extremely poor condition. The tenant had also left large quantities of goods in the property. The property also appeared to have been vandalised. On 13 June some repairs were performed on the property and a detailed account of tenant responsible maintenance was taken. In fact, a video recording was made of the property's condition. ACT Housing boarded up the property, and the property has not been vandalised since ACT Housing took possession of it.

On 22 June 2001 ACT Housing arranged for the abandoned goods to be removed and stored elsewhere. ACT Housing practice is to refer a damaged property such as this to a maintenance contractor to refurbish before retenanting. In this case, however, being 22 June, it was not possible to refer the property for immediate refurbishment because arrangements for the introduction of Total Facilities Management had not been finalised.

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