Page 4300 - Week 13 - Thursday, 17 November 2005

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

sitting at the bottom of everybody’s driveway. Well, I cannot see it happening. Not a rebel in sight. And he still wants this amount of service. Has he told us where he will get the money to pay for any of this? No. Has he told us whether we can get better expertise in the place? No. Has he told us anything at all about the quality of service that we receive from AFP national? No. We have a contract with the AFP because they are the best police force in the country.

MR PRATT: Mr Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Minister, thank you for your odd answer. If you are serious about intelligence-based policing and law enforcement, why are you not ensuring that the ACT has timely and efficient access to forensic facilities for crime analysis?

MR HARGREAVES: I said—in fact, just a minute ago, and I would like the record to show this and I underscore it—that the ACT has the best police and that the AFP is the best police force in the country. Mr Pratt asked me what I would do about that. Let me tell you: I will celebrate it. Unlike your good self, I will celebrate it.

The answer to what I will do to make sure that we have timely and appropriate access to forensic services is this: we already do have, thank you very much; it is signed up in a policing agreement.

Capital works

MR STEFANIAK: Treasurer, is it the case that, during the past two years, a record number of capital works proposals have been put forward for consideration by government, but that many of those proposals have not had satisfactory documentation to support the project being proposed? What action has the government taken to ensure that capital works projects have properly prepared business cases?

MR QUINLAN: Do I hear the echoes of a cabinet paper in that question? All I will inform the house is that we have a cabinet process that brings forward proposals and we have a cabinet process that requires those who are going to make it through to final consideration to have thorough business cases. I think it is fair to say that, in the opinion of some, some of the business cases that have come forward were typically budget papers as opposed to voluminous, full-blown business cases. In reality, I think cabinet would want somewhere in between those two extremes. As I did hear the echo of a cabinet-in-confidence paper, I am sure that somewhere in this building in the past few days or weeks the words “Oh, that is how you do it!” have been stated.

MR STEFANIAK: I have a supplementary question. Treasurer, how many capital works projects have been approved without satisfactory supporting documentation, such as full risk assessments, and has the territory been exposed due to projects being approved without satisfactory documentation?

MR QUINLAN: I would confidently say to the second question no. Because “satisfactory” is a qualitative term, if they were included in the budget, it follows that they had a satisfactory case.

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