Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 4 Hansard (3 April) . . Page.. 1523 ..
Breach action is available in instances of non-compliance, but this is only considered as a last resort. Breach action involves taking the young person before the Magistrate, at which point a further order can be made. In some instances the charges are dismissed by the Court, especially if the young person has been generally compliant over the duration of the court order.
Poverty report
(Question No 595)
Mr Smyth asked the Chief Minister, upon notice, on 3 April 2003:
(1) In response to Question 412 you noted that $39,600 as at 5 March 2003 was paid to NATSEM for the Locating poverty in the ACT report. In looking at the web site to locate this report the only document found was from December 2000 - is this the document that $39,600 was spent on or is there another and what is the direct link to find it.
Mr Stanhope: The answer to the member's question is as follows:
The December 2000 document is not the document relating to this request.
It was my understanding that the NATSEM report on locating poverty in the ACT was placed on the NATSEM website. As a matter of course, NATSEM places most of its research in the public domain. I have since been informed that on this occasion, NATSEM decided not to put the report on its website due to the sections which identified disadvantaged suburbs in the ACT.
The report will be published in the near future as part of the work on the Addressing Disadvantage Project. The report has not as yet been printed. A copy of the NATSEM report will be forwarded to Mr Smyth's Office when it is printed.
Mitchell Resource Recovery Centre
(Question No 596)
Mr Cornwell asked the Minister for Urban Services, upon notice:
In relation to the Mitchell Resource Recovery Centre:
(1) How many tonnes of rubbish, per month, has been taken to the Mitchell Resource Recovery Centre since it opened;
(2) How much of that rubbish has been able to be recycled;
(3) Has there been a reduction in the amount of waste going to landfill since the opening of the Mitchell Resource Recovery Centre, if so, by how much has waste going to landfill been reduced, if not, why not;
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .