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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2011 Week 14 Hansard (Wednesday, 7 December 2011) . . Page.. 5803 ..

couple of weeks back, that consequently from the federal tax summit the federal Treasurer changed and added terms of reference to the GST distribution review panel’s work and extended the deadline for that particular panel to complete its work.

I think the question of when the ACT government’s submission was lodged, given that it was understood by the panel that we would be some weeks after the original deadline, is really of little consequence in the context of the overall review, and that point is particularly reinforced by the fact that new terms of reference and additional issues have been added into the review panel’s deliberations that emerged directly out of the federal tax forum that was held in October.

Those opposite may wish to engage in this as a debating point, but I think the reality of the situation is that the terms of reference have now changed. The commonwealth process will take longer as a result. So the question of the timing of the ACT government’s submission, in this instance, is immaterial.

MR SPEAKER: Supplementary, Mr Seselja.

MR SESELJA: Minister, why did the cover page for the submission claim that the document was lodged in October when this was in fact not the case?

MR BARR: I do not think the cover page of this particular submission is particularly relevant to its submission date, Mr Speaker.

MR SPEAKER: Mr Smyth, a supplementary.

MR SMYTH: Minister, why did you initially claim in the Assembly that you had lodged a submission when this was not the case?

MR BARR: I apologised to the Assembly. I had lodged it in the cabinet process and I had thought that it had been dealt with. I was incorrect and I corrected the record as soon as possible.

MR SMYTH: A supplementary, Mr Speaker.

MR SPEAKER: Yes, Mr Smyth.

MR SMYTH: Minister, why did you initially claim that cabinet had approved the submission when this was not the case?

MR BARR: Because the submission had in fact been discussed in cabinet and had been the subject of a number of cabinet discussions, as you would anticipate, given the time frame for this particular review. It will of course continue to be the subject of cabinet deliberations, particularly now that there are new terms of reference and new issues that will be considered by the commonwealth review.


MS HUNTER: My question is to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and is in relation to Canberra CBD Ltd’s two-week trial to combat graffiti within Civic

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