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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 11 Hansard (21 October) . . Page.. 3451 ..

MS CARNELL: Mr Speaker, I think members are already aware of who lodged them. It is MGM. It is the marketing group. We have only paid them, as you know, $900,000 of their total contract, I think, so I would assume that the majority of that amount in dispute will be with the marketing group. There is obviously a smaller amount on top of that. In a major project there are usually some disputes over some smaller contracts.

Mr Corbell: Is $1.2m a small dispute?

MR SPEAKER: Mr Corbell, do you have a supplementary question?.

MR CORBELL: Yes, Mr Speaker. Will the Chief Minister confirm that should these claims succeed the real trading result for BOPL in 1998-99 will be a loss in the order of $3.6m rather than the $2.4m loss which has been reported, or a potential profit of more than $9m had the failed marketing campaign, for which BOPL paid $946,000, in fact worked as planned?

Mr Humphries: Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. That question is hypothetical.

MR CORBELL: Mr Speaker, I am very happy to rephrase the question if they do not want to answer that one.

MR SPEAKER: You will have to because the Treasurer was quite right.

MR CORBELL: All right. Chief Minister, what will be the real trading result for BOPL if this claim is successful?

MS CARNELL: It is still hypothetical.

Mr Humphries: Mr Speaker, it is still hypothetical.

MR SPEAKER: Yes, it is.

MR CORBELL: Well, add it up. You just add it up. You add $1.2m plus $2.4m.

MR SPEAKER: No, it is still hypothetical. You cannot make that statement because we do not know how much of the claims is outstanding.

MS CARNELL: Mr Speaker, I think it is appropriate to make a comment.

MR SPEAKER: No, it is not. This is question time.

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