Page 4553 - Week 12 - Thursday, 15 October 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
happens in his government. But what he is saying there is quite serious. He is claiming that he was kept in the dark. He is claiming that he as a shareholder was not informed, presumably, as he should have been. That is something that needs to be examined. That is one of the reasons we need an inquiry.
We have had mixed messages. We have had a massive blow-out in costs, which Jon Stanhope says now is not a blow-out. We had the massive blow-out before a sod was turned and then, in seeking to blame others for the performance of his government and the failures of his government, he says that he was kept in the dark. How was he kept in the dark? I think the Chief Minister should be called before an inquiry, when it happens, to explain how he was kept in the dark and what he has done about it; what he has done as a shareholder to ensure he is not kept in the dark on major projects and about the ballooning price.
He cannot have it both ways. He either knew about it and did nothing and did not ask questions that he should have, or he was kept in the dark and there was a serious breakdown in communication as he claims. Either scenario is a serious concern. Either scenario deserves further examination by this Assembly. He simply cannot have it both ways.
Of course, we saw it finalised yesterday. In response to a question, Mr Stanhope said, straight-faced:
It is not a blow-out; construction has not even started. It is a cost. There has been no blow-out at all.
Interesting: $243 million—from $120 million to $363 million—is no longer a blow-out.
The other reason we need an inquiry is that we see a pattern now in the delivery of capital works by this government. I believe we are the only jurisdiction that does not have a dedicated capital works committee to oversight major projects. I have not heard a credible argument put to me as to why in the ACT we do not believe that the legislature should oversight major capital works projects undertaken by the government. I will be interested to hear what is said, because it is an important part of this debate. If we had a capital works committee, we would not need this motion today. It would inevitably be looking at some of these projects; that is why it would exist.
Let us look at this government’s legacy: the massive blow-out in the GDE; the significant problems and blow-outs in the delivery of the prison; the massive underspends on capital works year to year; problems with things that seem simple, like Tharwa bridge, where the cost is something like $25 million now and counting. Taxpayers have a right to ask questions about these issues. They have a right to have a committee and a legislature able to look into these processes.
We have had inquiries into all sorts of things. Many of them have been very valid and important inquiries in the last 12 months. Let us put them into context. We have had an inquiry into bill posting. Bill posting is something that no doubt is of concern to some people in the community. But compare that to a $363 million project to secure
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .