Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2005 Week 2 Hansard (16 February) . . Page.. 496..
MR STANHOPE: It is what I said. I fear that if the commonwealth will not work with the ACT government on Pierces Creek, the residents of Pierces Creek will never, ever achieve security of title because of the attitude and as a result of the-
Mrs Burke: What about your attitude?
MR STANHOPE: I cannot change the territory plan, Mrs Burke. It is really a question of our not being able to do it at Pierces Creek. Only the commonwealth can.
Mrs Burke: Why don't you help the situation? You are hindering it.
MR SPEAKER: Mrs Burke is interjecting and she should not do so any more.
MR STANHOPE: Whether the residents of Pierces Creek will ever achieve security of title is in the hands of the commonwealth government, your Liberal Party colleagues.
MR MULCAHY: Mr Speaker, I want to raise a matter under standing order 118A. Yesterday in question time I raised a question with the attorney that related to a question on 7 December. I believe that the attorney said that he would be in a position to table the information sought after question time. It does not appear to have been tabled as yet, Mr Speaker, and I am wondering whether he can inform the Assembly when that will happen.
Mrs Dunne: Perhaps he should not walk away when someone is seeking information.
MR SPEAKER: I think that is the answer.
Mr Smyth: I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Mulcahy has asked a question and it has not been answered.
MR SPEAKER: All I can do is ask members of the opposition to take a look at standing order 118A and decide whether they want to explore any of the options therein.
MR HARGREAVES: On 15 February 2005, Dr Foskey asked two questions about Disability ACT's 2004-05 disability support funding process and I undertook to get her further information. The process for allocating funding under individual support packages was that there was a funding panel made up of representatives of the Department of Disability, Housing and Community Services and the community. Each application was assessed for eligibility and against criteria identifying risk and impact of funding. The applications were ranked accordingly. Sixty-nine applicants were short-listed and 153 people were unsuccessful in applying for funds.
Mr Speaker, there are no appeals processes as all funds have been fully expended. Where applicants have requested further information or advice, the department has provided their assessment information and provided an invitation to meet with the department to