Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2005 Week 08 Hansard (Wednesday, 29 June 2005 2005) . . Page.. 2443 ..
That enormous expenditure has been undertaken by Actew and, indeed, through agencies of the ACT government to ensure that we restore and protect our catchments, in the first instance, and also our capacity to ensure that the water we provide meets the very high standard we set ourselves and which is required of us under the Australian Standards, which we meet in relation to the purity and quality of our water.
It is easy to demonstrate. It can be demonstrated through our budget papers, if in no other way—those are available to the opposition and I refer them to those for the purposes of their interest in this particular issue—that the cost of maintaining our catchments, the cost of ensuring the quality of our water and the cost of ensuring that the water is treated to an appropriate standard, are costs of an order that certainly meet and justify the claim that was made.
MRS DUNNE: Mr Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Seeing you cannot demonstrate it here, now, for the Assembly, will you table the documents in the Assembly by close of business on Thursday that demonstrate that the water abstraction charge covers only the cost of providing water?
MR STANHOPE: The information that shows the extent to which the investment we make through our various agencies in provision of water and water supply for the territory are documents that are currently available to the opposition, and I refer them to those.
MRS DUNNE: Mr Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order. The question was about the water abstraction charge, not about general revenue.
MR SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, Mrs Dunne.
Policing—victims of crime
MR SPEAKER: Mrs Pratt—Ah, Mr Pratt.
MR PRATT: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I don’t think I have gone that far yet! My question is to the Minister for Police. Minister, why did you refuse to answer questions last week about police treatment of the victim of an alleged rape, which has caused widespread community concern, including from the ACT Rape Crisis Centre.
MR HARGREAVES: Because, Mr Speaker, unlike Mr Pratt, I had some concern for the feelings of a 16-year-old, a minor who has been put through the ringer. And I did not intend to have this put into the public arena, and I have no intention of putting it into the public arena. Mr Pratt, if you want to troll around and find little bits and pieces here and make this young girl’s life even more miserable then you go right ahead. At the moment, it is my understanding that all of the activities that applied in that particular incident is in fact in the body of the evidence that has been given to the court and is therefore sub judice. Even if it were not, I am not about to discuss the case of a 16-year-old girl in this place.
Mr Quinlan: Hear, hear!