Page 3372 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 17 August 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Indeed, an individual rang Chief Minister on talkback on Friday morning. Paul seemed to have information that it was clear that information I provided to the parties negotiating had become somewhat more public. One of the few investigative journalists in this town approached my office on Thursday with a list of questions which, indeed, confirmed to me that information from around the negotiating table had gone further than the parties had sought.
Mr Seselja: It is the only way we get information on Calvary, isn’t it?
MS GALLAGHER: No. The update around the negotiations with Calvary was going to be provided to the Assembly this week. It was not my intention to have it out on Friday.
MR SPEAKER: Mr Hargreaves, a supplementary?
MR HARGREAVES: Thanks very much, Mr Speaker. Treasurer, when was the Little Company of Mary aware of the change in accounting standards and were they negotiating from the perspective of seeking funds to which they may be not entitled according to that new standard?
MS GALLAGHER: The Little Company of Mary were aware of the standard as it applied to them, as a private sector operator, and it had applied to them for some time. However, I think the change around governments being able to apply the same principles as operators when accounting for service concession arrangements did occur within the negotiating timetable. Nobody had seen it coming. On 21 April that is what the exposure draft said. It has since been endorsed by the Accounting Standards Board.
MR SPEAKER: Mr Hanson, a supplementary?
MR HANSON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Minister, do you accept, in relation to your statement with regard to the Treasury analysis that no-one had disputed it, “nobody has been able to, and nobody will”, that you were in fact wrong?
MS GALLAGHER: No, I was not.
Roads—Civic
MS LE COUTEUR: My question is to the Minister for Territory and Municipal Services and concerns roadworks and refurbishing in Civic. The 2010 Cardno report on the ACT cycling and pedestrian network ranked shared space in Bunda Street and protected cycle paths in Bunda Street as the two highest priority infrastructure projects. Why is the current work in Bunda Street simply reworking pavement and other aesthetics instead of progressing these priority projects? And, if you did make Bunda Street into shared space, wouldn’t it make the current works largely redundant?
MR STANHOPE: I thank Ms Le Couteur for the question. I do not believe, as the question presupposes, that these are either/or issues. The work that has been
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video