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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 1 Hansard (18 February) . . Page.. 325 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

quality of delivery of services to allow those officers to work together. It will produce economies of scale and it will provide more space, and more comfortable space, for all of those workers. That, in anyone's language, is an improvement.

MR HIRD: I will not give a preamble, Mr Speaker. As you know, I do not. I will go straight to my supplementary question. Minister, are you aware of other comments by Labor MLAs in response to - - -

Mr Hargreaves: We will deal with you on Monday.

MR HIRD: Did you try to intimidate me, Mr Hargreaves? I am starting to worry. I will start again. Minister, are you aware of other comments by Labor MLAs in response to the draft capital works program, announced this morning by our great Chief Minister, which are also wrong?

Mr Corbell: I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. A supplementary question should have something to do with the substantive question. That was an entirely new question.

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, the first question was about the capital works program. The second question was about the capital works program as well.

Mr Corbell: On the point of order, Mr Speaker: The substantive question was not about the capital works program. It was about Mr Hargreaves' comments in relation to proposals for the Woden Valley JESC.

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, it was about the Labor Party's comments, including Mr Hargreaves'. Mr Hird referred to the Labor Party's comments. He has now asked me about further comments by the Labor Party.

MR SPEAKER: We have been through this before.

MR HIRD: I will rephrase it if you like.

MR SPEAKER: Yes, please.

MR HIRD: I ask you, Minister, in my supplementary question: What other comments made in response to the draft capital works program for 1999-2000 are wrong or inconsistent with the facts you have just given the house? I would be very interested to know.

Mr Corbell: I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is even more irrelevant as a supplementary question than the previous one was. It does not relate in any way to the substantive question asked by Mr Hird. Therefore, you should rule it out of order. His supplementary question must relate to the subject matter he raised in the original question. That is the issue, and I would ask you, Mr Speaker, to rule on that.

MR SPEAKER: The question is related to the capital works program and certain comments that were made by other people that may very well be erroneous. It is perfectly legitimate for the government of the day to correct them if they are erroneous.

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