Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2010 Week 01 Hansard (Wednesday, 10 February 2010) . . Page.. 164 ..

MS GALLAGHER: The government support the Treasury advice. We have no reason to believe that the experts at Treasury have not provided us with the best advice.

Mr Seselja: I think the answer is no.

MS GALLAGHER: No. The answer is no. I have not commissioned any other work, other than an independent peer analysis of the Treasury work. The Treasury work holds up. I could ask the same question: can you point to anyone who disputes the Treasury analysis? The answer to that is no.

Mr Smyth: Davidson does.

MS GALLAGHER: No. You are wrong, Mr Smyth. He has not disputed the analysis. He has disputed the government’s policy decision about the way forward. And that is incorrect. He has not disputed the financial analysis of this arrangement. Nobody has been able to dispute these figures. These figures hold up. In relation to Mr Harris, he was commissioned—

Mr Smyth: Have you read his advice?

MS GALLAGHER: Yes, I have. Mr Harris has been commissioned by the archbishop to come up with other options because the archbishop did not like the one the government had. What a surprise! He was commissioned specifically to provide alternatives to the archbishop, and that is what he has done.

Mr Hanson: On a point of order: I seek leave to quote from Professor Sinclair Davidson to clarify what I think is Ms Gallagher misleading the house.

MR SPEAKER: I do not think that is an option open to us, Mr Hanson. Ms Gallagher, do you want any more time?


MR SPEAKER: Mr Hargreaves, a supplementary question?

MR HARGREAVES: Thanks very much, Mr Speaker. There has been much discussion on financial matters. In the context of the financial analysis, minister, could you outline for the benefit of members the impact on the bottom line, for example, about the issue of a grant to a non-government organisation and how it appears on a bank balance sheet as opposed to a recurrent and capital impact on the balance sheet?

MS GALLAGHER: I thank Mr Hargreaves for the question. The challenge presented to the government, as I have said a number of times in this place, is that under the current arrangements, under the status quo, the government will essentially be providing a grant to the Little Company of Mary of in the order of $200 million. We would be required to make all the payments for that. That cash would need to come out of our operating result as a grant to a private organisation, as it does, for example,

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video