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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2010 Week 04 Hansard (Wednesday, 24 March 2010) . . Page.. 1360 ..


MS BRESNAN (Brindabella) (11.55): The Greens will be supporting Mr Hanson’s amendments. In relation to the first amendment, to 1(b), while we will accept this, I contend that Clare Holland House was the main point of concern that came out of the community and I think this was shown and demonstrated through the public forums which were held on this issue and the number of people who attended those forums. Also, judging by the correspondence we received, and I am sure other parties did, around this issue, it was primarily about Clare Holland House. Nevertheless, we will accept this amendment.

On the second amendment that Mr Hanson has proposed, to provide a due date, I do agree that it is fair to have a date. However, I will reiterate, as I did state in my initial speech on the motion, that we do accept that there may be some information which is not yet available. However, the government can table what information is available and we can simply note what is not. I think that is a fairly reasonable ask, so we will be accepting Mr Hanson’s amendments.

MS GALLAGHER (Molonglo—Deputy Chief Minister, Treasurer, Minister for Health and Minister for Industrial Relations) (11.56): I just want to make it clear that we will not be supporting Mr Hanson’s amendments—I note “to ‘Mrs’ Bresnan’s amendments”; I just note to Liberals that not all of us are “Mrs”, but anyway—to Ms Bresnan’s amendments.

We will be opposing these amendments. Indeed, Ms Bresnan has given the reasons in her speech about why she is supporting them. In relation to amendment (1), she argued against the position she is only obviously going to take on the floor. In relation to amendment (2), I can be quite clear to the Assembly that what I will be tabling tomorrow is an A4 piece of paper that says, “Discussions are continuing and at this point those negotiations are commercial-in-confidence.” That is what will be tabled tomorrow because there is—

Mr Hanson: What a surprise.

MS GALLAGHER: Go back and have a look at what you are asking. The proposed price of purchasing: there is not one.

Mr Hanson: You said you would table a letter last week and you have not.

MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Hanson!

MS GALLAGHER: The duration of a sublease: not agreed—not even anywhere near agreement. Governance and management arrangements: not agreed, early discussions. But we have not even got a clear indication back around whether this proposal will proceed, and that is the point. So the information that you will get tomorrow is a letter from the Chief Minister to the archbishop and the financial analysis that has already been provided for this deal, because the actual financial analysis of the three scenarios that were examined in the Treasury financial analysis as released for the last deal hold true because all of that—

Mr Smyth: So you have not done any work since then?


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