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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 03 Hansard (Wednesday, 10 March 2004) . . Page.. 973 ..

Ms McGregor. He advises me that he did not provide it to my office. I asked him for the basis on which he made that decision and he said he made the decision on the basis that it was not a matter relevant to my portfolio responsibilities; it was a matter for the department of youth and family services. He noted that the submission had been referred to the chief executive of that department. He also made the point to me that he assumed—he was going back some time in the context of the decision he made—that the submission had also been made at the same time. In the context of this advance copy, I think Mr Keady had assumed that by advance copy it meant that he had been provided with a copy of the submission at the same time as it had been provided to the committee. Mr Keady made the assumption that it was in the hands of the committee; that it would be made public; that, in being made available to the committee, it was made available to a member of the government, a member of the Liberal Party and a member of the crossbench; that it would be authorised for publication; and that through its authorisation on that same day it would be made available to all 17 members of the Assembly. Mr Keady took the position and made the assumption that I think all of our chief executives make in relation to all submissions that are lodged with Assembly committees for the purpose of their inquiries—that submissions through that process are made available to the entire Assembly. In that instance, of course, it would have been made available to a member of the Liberal Party. I do not know who the Liberal Party member of that particular committee was. Nevertheless the submissions came to the Assembly, came to the inquiry and were made public. And I repeat: the short answer to the question is no.

MRS BURKE: I thank the Chief Minister for that response and ask as a supplementary question: did you meet with the Community Advocate at that stage to discuss her concerns, as Mr Corbell did when he was advised of the contents of this report, or did you rely on members breaching standing order 241?

MR STANHOPE: The answer to the first question is no—and I do not know what standing order 241 is, so I cannot answer that.

Green power

MS DUNDAS: My question is to the Minister for Environment. I understand that the government has backed away from a commitment of moving to 100 per cent purchase of green power by ACT government agencies, indicating that you will pursue energy efficiencies instead. Can you please inform the Assembly of the target you have set for reduction in energy consumption by the government agencies? By what percentage have greenhouse gas emissions by government agencies reduced since Labor took office?

MR STANHOPE: Off the top of my head I cannot answer those questions. I am more than happy to get the statistics that you seek. Suffice it to say, the government has been reviewing the greenhouse strategy that has now been in place for some years. It is now at a point—as you are aware, a discussion paper about that was issued; the greenhouse strategy is being finalised—where the matter will very shortly be finalised. I do not have in my mind the timelines that we are working to in relation to that.

There has been a significant shuffling of the target and, indeed, the timelines incorporated within the strategy as a result of the research done over the last year. Analysis is being done of the extent to which targets previously set have been met. I can

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