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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 3 Hansard (25 March) . . Page.. 850 ..

MS CARNELL: Mr Berry appears to be saying that - - -

Mr Stanhope: And do it successfully.

MR SPEAKER: Order! This is question time. It is not a political meeting where somebody is being heckled while speaking from the back of a truck.

MS CARNELL: Mr Speaker, it is my advice that no memo has gone out from David Butt to the Department of Health generally. I come back to the core issue here. About 70 per cent of ACT government expenditure is in wages. If Mr Berry is ruling out voluntary redundancies, then I have to say that that side can never address the operating loss, so they will never be in government. I think that is a great outcome.

MR KAINE: My question is to the Chief Minister. I refer the Chief Minister to a couple of questions that I asked two weeks ago, on 11 March, in connection with the marketing organisation at Bruce. I asked her then whether it was a fact that a substantial up-front payment had been made to that company in addition to the commission, and I also asked her how much had actually been paid by way of commission. The Chief Minister took both those questions on notice. It is now two weeks later. Can the Chief Minister answer those questions?

MS CARNELL: Mr Speaker, it is my understanding that under standing orders I have 30 days to answer questions taken on notice.

MR KAINE: Okay, we will wait for an extra couple of weeks. Mr Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. I refer to the same matter that was earlier referred to by Mr Quinlan in connection with the nature of the contract with this marketing organisation. The Chief Minister answered in response to that earlier question that the contract expired in July. That is certainly true of the initial contract, but is it not true that there is a second contract which runs way beyond July?

Mr Humphries: Mr Speaker, this has no relation whatever to the first question.

MR SPEAKER: I doubt that that is supplementary to the original question.

Mr Humphries: Indeed, Mr Speaker. That is my point of order.

MR SPEAKER: Sorry, Mr Kaine, but it is not supplementary to the original question that you asked.

MR KAINE: Mr Speaker, I beg to differ with your ruling. Both questions deal with the contract with this marketing company. How can you rule the supplementary question out of order as being irrelevant? It is not irrelevant. It is supplementary to the first question.

MS CARNELL: Mr Speaker, I am happy to take that on notice as well.

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