Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2010 Week 04 Hansard (Wednesday, 24 March 2010) . . Page.. 1361 ..

MS GALLAGHER: Mr Smyth, nothing has changed. All of that financial analysis focused on the ownership of the building. And, as we have said in a number of briefings, the issues around the recurrent operating impact were not dealt with in that financial analysis—and nothing under that has changed. So that is what you will get tomorrow. Just to make it clear: you will get the financial analysis that Treasury provided and a letter from the archbishop. In relation to all other aspects of the motion, there is no further information that I can provide to the Assembly.

MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (11.59): Just to be clear: the opposition is not asking the government to invent documents. If there is not a document that does not cover a point anywhere between (a) and (f), then of course the government cannot supply it. That is a simple answer: “No documents exist at this time.” What that will reveal, of course, is the depth of work that the minister has done, and that is the point that Mr Hanson seeks to make. What work have we done on this?

In the original proposal there is a document that purports to be analysis—which has been debunked by several commentators of high standing, including a former Auditor-General of New South Wales, which the Treasurer simply refuses to accept. She has said on numerous occasions: “Nobody has debunked my analysis. Therefore, my analysis stands.” But she clearly has not read the documents.

In Mr Harris’s documents he gives several opportunities for the Treasurer to explore. But the Treasurer chooses not to. And that is the problem with going forward with any confidence that this Treasurer, this Deputy Chief Minister, this Minister for Health, is actually up to the job. Just simply go to paragraph (2)(f), where Mr Hanson has asked for:

(f) any analysis conducted of alternative courses of action that may have been considered.

The Treasurer is saying that there are no documents. So one can only assume from that that there was no discussion conducted, that there was no analysis conducted, of alternative courses.

Of course, remember that, when the deal fell over, everything was on the table, from compulsory acquisition. So does this mean there is no document about compulsory acquisition, even though the minister told this place that all options were being looked at? It will be interesting to see what work the minister has done in regard to what she told this place in previous sittings this year—that all options were on the table; that everything was being discussed: “No matter how silly it is, we are going to look at it.” But it would appear that we have simply come back to one option, without doing any work, if we take the minister at her word in what she just said.

Ms Gallagher: So you want to compulsorily acquire it, Brendan?

MR SMYTH: What we are saying, minister, is: did you do the work? We are simply asking the question: what work have you done? And, if you have done some work, table it. If not, I will go back and look at the Hansard, where the minister said, “We

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video