Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 5 Hansard (4 May) . . Page.. 1305 ..
MR STEFANIAK (continuing):
looked at this decision and very carefully looked at this comprehensive report and made its decision on the basis of that. Of course, a lot of this report was in relation to, specifically, the issues of competition policy. Accordingly, the Government has been very careful in terms of assessing the report and making its decision.
MR RUGENDYKE: Mr Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Minister, if the new proposal were to be overturned by any further competitive neutrality complaints, would the Government still spend the $8m on another project in Belconnen or would the electorate of Ginninderra miss out totally on the $15m promised at the last election?
MR SPEAKER: That is very close to seeking an expression of opinion, Mr Stefaniak.
MR STEFANIAK: Yes, it is hypothetical, Mr Speaker. However, this project will take a few years. I note that you mentioned the sum of $15m, Mr Rugendyke. If you look at what the Government has spent over the last three years in Belconnen, I think that you will find that it is a lot more than $15m on capital works. As a member for Ginninderra, I would certainly hope that over the next three years we will spend a lot more than $15m.
MR CORBELL: Mr Speaker, my question is to the Chief Minister. Will the Chief Minister explain to the Assembly why the Under Treasurer's specific performance criteria 1998-2000, contained within the Under Treasurer's executive contract, does not include reference to his directorship of Bruce Operations, whilst it does make specific mention of ACTEW and ACTTAB? Has this been deliberately omitted from the contract to avoid scrutiny by the Assembly, as the contracts are public documents?
MS CARNELL: Mr Speaker, we have been so open about this matter that everybody knows who are the two shareholders of Bruce Operations Pty Ltd, or BOPL as we call it. I assume that that is the case because the performance contract was written prior to BOPL coming into existence. Mr Speaker, if those opposite did not realise that the Under Treasurer was one of the shareholders of BOPL, then they were the only ones who did not.
MR SPEAKER: Do you have a supplementary question, Mr Corbell?
MR CORBELL: Yes, thank you, Mr Speaker. It has been reported that the Under Treasurer "remains confident that the refurbished stadium will ultimately return the $30m to $40m investment within the next 30 years". That is a quote from the Under Treasurer in the Chronicle of 13 April. Will the Chief Minister explain to the Assembly how the Under Treasurer's performance can be assessed, based on projects that are not reflected within his performance-based contract, where the possibility of a return to the Territory is based merely on supposition?
MS CARNELL: Mr Speaker, I am happy to tell you how I would assess the performance of the Under Treasurer - on the basis that there is $57.5m of new Commonwealth money in the budget that I will be bringing down this afternoon. Mr Speaker, the work that OFM did - and it was OFM that did it - in terms of the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .