Page 3858 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 19 October 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR SPEAKER: We will soon see, if you let her speak.
Mrs Dunne: The point I was trying to make is that to attribute erroneously positions about capital punishment to Mr Stefaniak and his policy in the ACT is not part of the question. It is debating and hectoring on the issue and not addressing the question, which is what standing order 118 (a) requires.
MR SPEAKER: The Chief Minister is entitled to deal with the matter in context, and he has done so. If Mr Stefaniak feels offended by some personal matter, he can raise it with me under standing order 46 and I will allow him to speak on the matter.
MR STANHOPE: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
MR STEFANIAK: Mr Speaker, I have a supplementary question. As a blockbuster, Chief Minister, let us try this one: have you had any negotiation with New South Wales to ensure that New South Wales prisoners will still come to the ACT? If not, why not?
MR STANHOPE: It is the case that the cabinet-approved budget for the Alexander Maconochie Centre was $110 million in 2003 terms, with a specific notation that a relevant escrow would be applied to the construction day cost. Mr Stefaniak has his sums right. The expectation in the current budget, which we will come in on, is $128 million. To date, with the letting of the first two significant contracts—a $7.5 million design contract and a $2.5 million preliminary works contract—the project is running spot on budget.
I am very pleased that we have progressed as far as we have. We have ended the design phase and begun preliminary works. The first two significant contracts have been let. It is subject, of course, to the design, which has not yet been done. The instruction is that the design be one that can be delivered for the budget cost, and I will continue to insist that that be the case. The budgeted cost is $128 million and we will come in on budget. That is the instruction to date. The two contracts that have been let are essentially right on budget. At this stage the project is tracking, as they say, on time and on budget.
Land Development Agency
MR SESELJA: My question is to the planning minister. I refer to the financial statements of the Land Development Agency contained in the annual report for 2004-05. The financial statements show, on page 76, a growth of around 1,000 per cent in the marketing, promotion and selling costs by comparison with the 2003-04 financial year. Why has the marketing and promotional budget grown by so much at a time when the territory budget is sliding further and further into the red?
MR CORBELL: I thank Mr Seselja for the question. The first thing that Mr Seselja should be aware of about the Land Development Agency is that the Land Development Agency is not budget funded; it is not a draw on the ACT budget. Activities of the Land Development Agency are not budget funded; they are funded from land sales revenue. Therefore, there are no increased imposts directly on the taxpayer because of that.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .