Page 415 - Week 01 - Thursday, 11 December 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR SMYTH: I accept the ruling. We need to look at the good practice, for instance, of the arboretum process. We accept that contractors were on site. If you have an opportunity to save the government some money, that is probably reasonable and a good thing to do. It is a shame this practice was not applied to the Gungahlin Drive extension. The problem with the arboretum is that it was chronically underfunded from the start. The original proposal, as I understand it, was for something like $20 million to do the necessary first stage work. That was cut to $12 million. Eventually it was cut to $8 million. Now money has been put back in and money has been—
Members interjecting—
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, members!
MR SMYTH: Again, I just want to point out the bad process and the lack of forward planning. We have highlighted—and I pointed it out this week—the government’s inability to deliver on its promises.
As to the solar power facility adviser, I think we all agree—I do not think there is anybody here that does not see an opportunity for solar power—but I would much rather have had an opportunity to discuss in detail what this individual will do, how the process will work and what it may lead to and to explore issues in regard to setting up a solar manufacturing industry through something like Spark Solar. But, again, we are denied that opportunity.
I accept what the Chief Minister says on the residual Beijing torch relay costs. If he says he will go after the money, then that is a good thing. But, Ms Le Couteur, if the way we are going to look at accountability is to say, “If you spend it, then you have to pay your bills—
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Smyth, would you speak through me and not address your questions—
MR SMYTH: Certainly; through you, Madam Deputy Speaker. If the comment that the money has been spent, therefore, we should pay it is the notion of accountability, all that means is the government has to spend money and then come here and say, “We spent it; we need to pay the bills.” That is not accountability. We need to explore this process. I accept what the Chief Minister said. He thought he had an agreement; he thought the commonwealth would pay. He thought Kevin Rudd, on the day, would come good with the cash.
Again, I asked these questions in the briefing. I said, “Has the commonwealth paid? Have we got cash from the commonwealth?” I did not get an answer that answered that question; I got a document that said, “Beijing Olympic costs. The territory received the following in-kind support from the commonwealth.” It lists the Australian Federal Police, it lists other commonwealth agencies, it talks about the Olympic committee. It then says, “All up the relay has now cost the ACT taxpayer $1.388m, 950k in the second approp, 430k in the second approp, 2008-09.” It did not answer the question anywhere so we had to go back and send an email, “Have we got
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .