Page 3946 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 25 August 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
consistent advice of the Treasury, the Department of Health—and of others—that we accepted and that we acted on. It was a position that was appropriate, and it was advice, which, at the time, was consistent with the accounting standards that applied.
But, Mr Speaker, things do change. The advice changed, and there is some classic comment by someone that, when circumstances change, when positions change, one is required to perhaps reflect on a better way forward, as a result of a change in advice, a change in position or, in this case, a change in accounting standard.
The accounting standard changed. At the time we developed a position, we responded to advice on the application of the accounting standard. The accounting standard changed. And what is the Liberal Party saying? That, if an accounting standard changed, it would nevertheless not change its position?
Mr Seselja: No, you should have had a different position to start with, you dill. You took the wrong position from the start.
MR STANHOPE: Well, that is not what your motion says—
Mr Seselja: That is your problem.
MR SPEAKER: Mr Seselja.
MR STANHOPE: You might want to argue that.
Mr Seselja: That is your problem.
Ms Gallagher: How do you argue that, Zed?
MR SPEAKER: Mr Seselja.
MR STANHOPE: Argue that!
Mr Seselja: Every commentator except your Treasury said you were wrong.
MR SPEAKER: Order!
MR STANHOPE: But this motion does not go—
Ms Gallagher: You are wrong.
Mr Seselja: Every commentator.
MR STANHOPE: This motion simply does not go to the position that was appropriate at the time, in the face of the accounting standards that applied.
Mr Seselja: Where is the third-party validation, do you remember?
Ms Gallagher: So what did Kate Carnell do? Was she wrong?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video