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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 8 Hansard (26 August) . . Page.. 2503 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

In the annual review this year, the Environment Management Authority looked at what was going on at Totalcare. They looked at the figures that Totalcare has provided. They wrote back with some concerns. Totalcare will answer those concerns. At the same time, as they are allowed to do under the Act, they have themselves asked for an independent audit which they will pay for. I think it is a tremendous outcome when you have a company in the ACT that is willing to lead in environmental world's best practice.

MS TUCKER: I ask a supplementary question. How will you be ensuring the independence and thoroughness of Totalcare's review of its own operations, or will this be another independent consultant's report like the independent rural residential study?

MR SMYTH: I am told that we do not have somebody in the ACT who can conduct an audit of that nature. We do not have a firm resident here. There is a list. We have gone to some of the other environmental protection authorities to see whom they would recommend. Somebody appropriate will be selected from that list, and they will conduct the independent review.

MR BERRY: My question is to the Chief Minister. I refer to the Canberra Times article of 18 June this year in relation to preferential treatment handed out to a friend of the Liberals over the impounding of an unregistered trailer and the government funded return of that unregistered trailer. The Canberra Times report said - - -

Mr Humphries: Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. If Mr Berry would like to resume his seat, I would be happy to put my point of order.

MR SPEAKER: Sit down, please, Mr Berry.

Mr Humphries: Mr Speaker, you have already ruled today twice on the question of inferences and imputations. The imputation in that question already - we have not heard it all yet - is so very clear and is so very clearly outside standing order 117(d) that I think you should rule the question out of order.

MR BERRY: You have not heard it all yet. How can you rule it out of order, Mr Speaker?

MR SPEAKER: I would suggest you rephrase it, because as it is at the moment Mr Humphries is perfectly correct.

MR BERRY: What was the full cost of this service to Mr Murphy? Has the Government sent Mr Murphy a bill?

Mr Humphries: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Mr Berry has not withdrawn the inference in his question, and if he has not - - -

MR SPEAKER: No, he has not.

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