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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 6 Hansard (1 September) . . Page.. 1680 ..

Ms Carnell: Mr Speaker, Mr Stanhope is reflecting on not just one vote of this Assembly but, I think, now two.

MR STANHOPE: I am sorry, I did not get the point of the point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you clarify it for me?

Mr Corbell: It is not a point of order, Mr Speaker. Under what standing order is the Chief Minister calling a point of order?

Ms Carnell: He is reflecting on a vote of the Assembly. We voted on the issue of Kinlyside, Mr Speaker, in this Assembly on two occasions, I think.

MR STANHOPE: On the point of order, Mr Speaker: I am referring directly to evidence given to the Estimates Committee and we are currently debating the estimates report.

MR SPEAKER: I will allow a broad debate on this matter. Go on.

MR STANHOPE: I have concluded on the point, Mr Speaker, but I will probably take it up on another occasion in another way.

Ms Carnell: And it will be reflecting on a vote again.

MR SPEAKER: Order! We are debating an appropriation. I hope we will get some general discussion.

MR STANHOPE: I regret that I have not had more time to delve into the response, but there are indications that perhaps the Government has got the message and that it is not just paying lip-service to some of the issues raised quite legitimately by the Estimates Committee. For instance, in its response to recommendation 16, the Government has agreed that it does need better arrangements in relation to deals such as that concerning the painting of aeroplanes. There is an issue at this late stage, even now that the aeroplane can fly, as to whether or not there are still seven air shows around Australia that it can get to. I do not think there are. I think it has done its dash, so there is $15,000, at least, that is hanging.

Regarding the Government's response to recommendation 17 about the need for a protocol in relation to the purchasing and funding of public events, the Government says that it agrees with the need for a protocol so that we can avoid the absurdity of tennis matches purchased at fundraising dinners. It will not end up costing the ACT ratepayer $30,000, $60,000, or whatever it was.

There are a whole range of responses by the Government which require much more detailed comment. For instance, I notice the Government's response to the committee's report expressed concern about job losses within the ACT Public Service. The committee commented in its report on the unsatisfactory fact that the Government cannot tell us what the job movements in each of the agencies will be this year - I think that is the new terminology. (Extension of time granted)

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