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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 9 Hansard (2 September) . . Page.. 2750 ..

MR SPEAKER: I was about to say, Chief Minister, that I will allow the question because it is a legitimate question; but in most parliaments, when a question as detailed as that is put forward, the normal thing is to put it on the notice paper.

Mr Corbell: I raise a point of order. I am entitled to ask any question I like. If the Chief Minister is unable to answer it, she should say, "I will take that question on notice". You should not be giving her advice on that matter.

MR SPEAKER: That is exactly what may happen. It seems to me to be rather fruitless to ask a question which may simply bring a response that it will be taken on notice. The opportunity is there to ask questions.

Mr Whitecross: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Opposition appreciates your advice on how to conduct question time and will discuss that in the party room in due course. But, Mr Speaker, may I suggest, while we are handing out the advice, that the point of question time is to scrutinise the Government. Ministers come along briefed on possible questions. I would have thought this was the kind of question the Chief Minister could expect to be briefed on. The member is entitled to ask questions which are in the public interest and of interest to the community, in the hope that the Minister actually knows what she is talking about and can answer the questions.

MR SPEAKER: That is entirely up to the Chief Minister.

MRS CARNELL: Mr Speaker, that is not a point of order. It is actually hard now, after all their points of order, to remember every part of the question; but I will give it a go.

Mr Corbell: I can read it again, if you like, Mr Speaker.

MRS CARNELL: No; he can sit down, Mr Speaker. It is all right. I think I can manage. I have tried to explain this one to Mr Berry at length. In fact, I tried to give him a calculator not so long ago. He did not take the calculator, and it shows. In the budget, as those opposite would know, we allocated $8.1m for the implosion on Acton Peninsula. As I explained in this house last week, we believe that the final cost of the implosion will be some $2m less than that. I actually explained that last week in the house. The final position with regard to the actual demolition on Acton Peninsula is $2m better than estimated. That answers those bits of that question with regard to the demolition itself.

With regard to the disruption of child-care centres, my understanding is that the cost of relocation is estimated to be in the order of $85,000. It is not exactly $2m, but we will not get into that. Mr Speaker, as you would be aware, the Heritage child-care centre was relocated to the old QEII building; the university preschool and child-care centre was relocated to the old Ainslie preschool in Donaldson Street at Braddon; and some of the babies from the university centre actually went to the Magistrates Court centre. As I have said before, I would like to thank all of those involved in that relocation for being so cooperative. The cost of that was about $85,000.

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