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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 5 Hansard (14 May) . . Page.. 1397 ..

MR STEFANIAK: Whether we need to do an assessment or not might not be the question. I think it is probably simply a matter of my asking Housing to go back over the last few months and see what instances of need where they had to do something very quickly arose. I am quite happy to do that. I know of several instances where action had to be taken. I stress that I cannot recall any situation where someone ultimately was not accommodated or had an ongoing problem. The response has been quite effective in the instances that have been brought to my attention. I am certainly happy to have Housing go back and see what figures we have on unmet need.

Mrs Carnell: I ask that all further questions be placed on the notice paper.

MR WHITECROSS (Leader of the Opposition): Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation under standing order 46.

MR SPEAKER: Proceed.

MR WHITECROSS: These things seem to be a very frequent requirement when Mr Humphries answers questions. In Mr Humphries's answer to a question from Mrs Littlewood, he misrepresented me on a couple of occasions - probably more than a couple, but I am going to deal with only two here. Mr Humphries suggested that I had suggested yesterday that the fast food site at Chisholm would not sell at a good price or that it was some sort of fire sale. What I in fact said was that he was selling it because he thought he would get a good price for it, but that he was selling it in spite of the impact it would have on small takeaway restaurants in the area, small businesses already established in the area.

In his answer he also misrepresented me when he suggested that I had opposed the sale of other commercial sites to which he alluded in his answer. My question related only to the Chisholm fast food takeaway site. It did not relate to the other commercial sites that were alluded to in Mr Humphries's reply. On those two counts Mr Humphries has misrepresented me, and I think I have set the record straight on those matters.

MR WOOD: I rise under standing order 46.

MR SPEAKER: Proceed.

MR WOOD: Mr Humphries went back into history to try to justify what he did, but the facts are that history is on my side. Mr Humphries waved a report, trying to promote the view that it was pretty well totally about charging at nature parks and at Namadgi. The report was a marketing strategy which included in one small component of it something about charging. The history says that the Follett Cabinet, come budget time, persistently rejected any claim to impose charges on entry.

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