Skip to content


15 April, 2010

Hon KEN TRAVERS: I refer to the amount of $60 million for the royalties for regions fund. Does this relate to the money that has been taken from the capital side and been put onto the recurrent side? If it does, why does Treasury not have a fancy name for that—perhaps something like “barrelling”?

Hon Sue Ellery: Or “expensed”!

Hon KEN TRAVERS: I would have thought “barrelling”, or “porked over”! There must be a lot of names for that!

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Hon Max Trenorden): “Pork” is a good agricultural term!

Hon KEN TRAVERS: Yes, it is a good agricultural term. I would have thought there would be a name for that. If that is the case, can the parliamentary secretary identify the projects that have not been funded but rather have been re-cashflowed or re-adjusted—when we get to capital works, the term is not “re-cashflowed” but is “cashflow-adjusted”—to make provision for that $60 million to be incorporated here?

Subject: Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill 2010 [Legislative Council – Committee]

Date: 1 April 2010

Hansard reference: p. 1248 [online (pdf)]

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: