Page 1993 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 6 May 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The Canberra Business Council, through Ms Chris Faulks, reported on the budget that capital works expenditure will generate employment opportunities in the short to medium term. Chris Peters, a closet leftie but another known leftie, said:
This is a-steady-as-she-goes budget … It maintains confidence for both consumers and businesses during tough economic times. The significant capital expenditure—
according to Chris Peters—
will help stimulate the ACT economy and the expenditure in health and education will also be of great assistance.
Alan Evans, a known supporter, I do confess and admit, of the Labor Party, said:
The NRMA welcomes the funding for roads such as the Gungahlin Drive duplication.
Jim Torr from the Australian Federal Police Association said that this budget will assist Canberrans “in reclaiming the public places of the ACT for family use”. Roslyn Dundas has welcomed the homelessness and elder law project of Legal Aid. The ACT schools community has also been full of praise. Elizabeth Singer from the ACT Council of Parents and Citizens said:
The council supports the directions for public education.
Penny Gilmour, similarly, on private education—
MR SPEAKER: The Chief Minister’s time has expired. Resume your seat.
Mr Stanhope: I ask that all further questions be placed on the notice paper.
Answers to questions on notice
Question Nos 30, 131 and 168
MRS DUNNE: Mr Speaker, in accordance with standing order 118A, I would like to seek an explanation from the Attorney-General as to the lateness of answers to question on notice No 30, which was due on 12 March; 131, which was due on 28 March; and 168, which was due on 2 May.
MR CORBELL: I thank Mrs Dunne for the question. Mr Speaker, those questions have now been cleared by my office and they should be with Mrs Dunne shortly.
Question No 133
MRS DUNNE: I also ask the Minister for Corrections for an explanation—not an “it’s in the mail”—as to why the answer to question on notice 133, which was due on 28 March, is overdue.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .