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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 13 Hansard (3 December) . . Page.. 4317 ..

MR STEFANIAK: That is a somewhat difficult one, I think. It is fairly obvious. I think I can say, Mr Speaker, that school-based management has been worked out very thoroughly by the department, by schools and by all relevant stakeholders. As it commences next year, they will continue to do so. As I have already indicated, there are a number of safeguards and procedures in place to assist anyone who has any problems with it, so that the system can be a success. There are many schools in our system which are very much looking forward to enhanced school-based management and its commencement next year. I think it will prove to be of considerable benefit to the system.

MS FOLLETT: Mr Speaker, I have a question without notice to the Attorney-General, Mr Humphries. Minister, I wrote to you on 23 October 1996 asking that you intervene to stop ACT Housing from discriminating against the victims of domestic violence in its rulings about the eligibility for public housing of people who already own property. You might recall that in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal recently there has been a case which demonstrates that ACT Housing regards the subject of a restraining order as eligible for public housing but not the victim. Minister, when may I expect a reply from you in relation to this matter?

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, the answer to Ms Follett's question is: About half an hour ago. It was signed off this morning and it should be in your office at the moment, but I can give you information about the issue. I agree that there appears to be a perversity in the application of the Housing Trust rules in that respect. It is fairly clear that, under the rules that are presently drafted, those who are seeking the protection of domestic violence orders or who have protection orders are, in fact, disadvantaged vis a vis those who in fact are the subject of those orders. That appears to be a bit anomalous. I have considered the question and I have asked for action to be taken in that respect. I hope that between my colleague Mr Stefaniak and me we can resolve those issues.

MR MOORE: Mr Speaker, my question is to the Chief Minister. Chief Minister, when you launched the Lend Lease proposal for the development of the car parking area next to Woden Plaza were you aware that Lend Lease had had that car parking lease for only two years and that there was quite considerable debate within your bureaucracy as to whether or not they should be granted that lease? Furthermore, were you aware that Lend Lease had committed to spend $318,000 in order to upgrade that lease and had not spent any money at all on that?

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