ACT Legislative Assembly Hansard


Advanced search

Next page . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . Search

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2008 Week 6 Hansard (26 June) . . Page.. 2066..


MS GALLAGHER (continuing):

the first written advice, which is what I said at estimates that I was waiting for, I had not received any advice around the potential health impacts until I received a brief on about 28 May, which coincided with the revised proposal at about the same time—the day before or the day after.

MR SPEAKER: A supplementary question, Mrs Burke.

MRS BURKE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Minister, as one of the two major shareholders of Actew Corporation, why had you still not been briefed as late as last month, and will you table such advice that you have received, written or otherwise?

MS GALLAGHER: You have asked me a separate question. You have asked me why, as a major shareholder, I was not briefed. Now, if you are asking me as a shareholder whether I was briefed, that is a different question to the question you asked me initially, which was whether I was briefed as health minister on the health impacts of the proposal. So what are you asking? Are you asking was I briefed as a shareholder about the proposal or are you asking about the health impacts? I find it difficult to answer the question, Mr Speaker, when the supplementary did not relate to the first question.

The briefing that I was provided as a shareholder of Actew is quite different to the question around potential health impacts raised with me under my health portfolio. I am actually not sure how to answer that question. I just do not know. I do not know what you are asking. I do not think this forum allows for a discussion between Mrs Burke and me, but, as a shareholder at a briefing—if that was her supplementary question—health impacts were not raised with me. It was in the context of a separate briefing not related to health; it was related to the proposal in general. I am really unclear on how I can answer a supplementary that does not relate to the original question.

Gas-fired power station

MR PRATT: My question is to the minister for disability services. Minister, as you explained during the budget estimates hearing into disability services on 28 May, the need to move the respite facility for severely disabled men, Rose Cottage, the nearest residence to the proposed power station, was due not to any health concerns but to the need for isolation. As the scaled-down version is actually another 100 metres closer, why are you now considering not shifting the facility as reported in the Chronicle on 24 June?

MS GALLAGHER: I have not received advice from the department yet around that. They are formulating that. I have not changed my opinion, because I have not received any advice that says that I need to move it or I do not need to move it. The proposal is significantly reduced in size; I need to look at that. But yes, the factors I raised about isolation and the necessary place for that facility to optimise the best services for the people that live there are still my main driving factor in terms of considering the location of that respite facility regardless of the size of the proposal.

MR SPEAKER: Supplementary question, Mr Pratt?


Next page . . Previous page. . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . Search


If you have special accessibility requirements in accessing information on this website,
please contact the Assembly on (02) 6205 0439 or send an email toOLA@parliament.act.gov.au
Accessibility | Copyright and Disclaimer Notice | Privacy Policy
© Legislative Assembly for the ACT