Page 168 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 10 February 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MS GALLAGHER: We are meeting one per cent in terms of the government, and we are going to commission other work as we see fit.
Mr Smyth: You rejected it.
MS GALLAGHER: We have not spent any of that money on expert consultants if they are required. I think there was a media stunt that was done. Zed was in at work for the day, which was a bit of a surprise to everybody, and a media release went out. It must have been a sitting day because we know he is never around unless it is a sitting day. But Zed was in and Zed wanted a bit of TV, and he put out a media release. (Time expired.)
MR SPEAKER: Mr Smyth, a supplementary?
Mr Hargreaves: That is two in a row.
MR SMYTH: Treasurer, who will make decisions—
MR SPEAKER: Mr Smyth, one moment, please. Sorry, Mr Hargreaves, do you have something you want to add?
Mr Hargreaves: Yes, I have, Mr Speaker. I draw to your attention to the fact that two supplementaries in a row from the same member might be a little unfair.
MR SPEAKER: Thank you for your feedback, Mr Hargreaves. Mr Smyth, you have the call.
MR SMYTH: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Treasurer, who will make the decision about the use of the consultant and how much the panel will be able to spend on possible savings proposals?
MS GALLAGHER: Treasury will have that authority but they will keep me informed as required.
Deakin swimming pool
MS LE COUTEUR: My question is to the Minister for Planning and concerns the recently commenced technical amendment to the territory plan for Deakin pool. Given the planning minister’s commitment in 2005 that no lease variation would be permitted that would remove the requirement for a 50-metre indoor pool on site, why was a technical amendment proposed that would reduce the pool to 25 metres?
MR BARR: Circumstances changed between 2005 and 2009.
MR SPEAKER: Ms Le Couteur, a supplementary question?
MS LE COUTEUR: Yes, Mr Speaker. Given that technical amendments have to be consistent with the policy purpose, how was that consistent with the government’s commitment to retain the 50 metres?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video