Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2009 Week 11 Hansard (17 September) . . Page.. 4196..
MR SPEAKER: Mr Coe, a supplementary question?
MR COE: Minister, was Havelock Housing included as a provider in the estimates package, round 2? If not, is it because the ACT government provided advice to the federal government that they should not be?
MR HARGREAVES: The government, as a result of the incredibly extensive consultation process, actually received an enormous number of proposals for the provision of community and other types of social housing.
The rules about what would be approved and what would not be approved was that all of the proposals would be evaluated by the ACT government. In fact, those proposals that were evaluated were put forward to the commonwealth with our endorsement. The rules, though, were that all proposals, whether they were supported or otherwise by the ACT government, were to be put to the federal government.
The actual rules of the stimulus package were that the commonwealth will have the final say in the matter.
Mr Coe: Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. We are now half way into the answer and he has not answered the question about whether Havelock Housing was one of the approved providers.
MR HARGREAVES: Mr Speaker, I was trying to tell those opposite, against very significant interjection, that it is the federal government's decision on all proposals put forward, including that from Havelock House. All proposals were duly put forward to the federal government for their consideration and they have approved those particular proposals that I have announced.
If, in fact, a particular proponent put up a proposal that would not fly in the eyes of the federal government, it did not receive support. The federal government has the final say on whether they got it. Mr Coe can build as many straw men as he likes.
Mr Stanhope: I ask that all further questions be placed on the notice paper.
Supplementary answers to questions without notice
Pace Farm—battery hens
MR STANHOPE: If it is appropriate now, I wish to clarify a couple of answers and provide some additional information.
Ms Le Couteur asked me a question today on contractual arrangements in relation to Thiess. I have in fact provided information to Ms Le Couteur in the last few weeks in relation to the advice provided to me by TAMS about this particular issue. I actually set out in that letter the explanation provided to me by TAMS, an explanation which I had accepted and which I have conveyed to Ms Le Couteur.