Page 129 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 14 February 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR KAINE: I think I have made my position quite clear that there are only four Ministers; there is no question about that whatsoever. I was present at the Chief Minister's XI when Mr Stefaniak was inadvertently referred to as the Minister for sport, and I brought it to the attention of that particular organisation that he was not. I have attempted on several occasions, when he has been referred to in that manner, to bring to the attention of the people that he is not a Minister. A myth seems to be being perpetuated out there. It is probably being perpetuated by members of the Opposition so that they can come in here and ask stupid questions and embarrass me. But it does not embarrass me in the slightest.
MR BERRY: I ask a supplementary question, Mr Speaker. Has the Chief Minister approved Mr Stefaniak's use of the title Parliamentary Secretary for Sport, Recreation and Racing?
MR KAINE: No.
Mr Berry: Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table a document, a facsimile cover sheet, which mentions the name of Bill Stefaniak MLA as the Parliamentary Secretary for Sport, Recreation and Racing. It is:
Commonwealth Games athletes - Copy of facsimile invitation from Mr T. Morris, ACT Office of Sport, Recreation and Racing to Mr W. Berry, MLA, dated 12 February 1990.
Leave granted.
Mr Whalan: I move that it be incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
Document incorporated at appendix 5
National Capital Plan
MR WOOD: I direct to the Chief Minister a question concerning planning. I am interested in pursuing the Alliance policy on planning, but I refer also to a document by Mr Chris Donohue, which states that the Rally supports the broad thrust of the National Capital Plan. Chief Minister, today you have repeated the Liberal Party view which is in contrast with your statement in response to the first question today that the plan is pervasive. How and when will these conflicting statements be resolved? How is the Government going to present a united view to the NCPA? In terms of your document here on planning, how will you negotiate without resolving the differences that you have, because it is not expressed in this document?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .