Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 7 Hansard (17 October) . . Page.. 1727 ..

MR STEFANIAK: Have another look, Ms McRae. Mr McGibbon, who was on radio before me, seemed to understand it a lot better than you, because he said, "Right, I will come and have a chat to you".

Ms McRae: It is not what you said.

MR STEFANIAK: He understood it. I understood it. You are the only one who does not seem to have really understood it. I think that if Mr McGibbon understood it, you should. That is that, Mr Connolly. Might I congratulate you, too, on your statement in relation to euthanasia.

MR CONNOLLY: There was a supplementary question to that, Mr Speaker. Following up Mr Stefaniak's answer, as we understand it, individuals can negotiate fees in relation to pools. Can we take it from that that this will apply across the board for this pro-business can-do Government? Can we expect to see, say, primary producers negotiating a price for the registration of their farm vehicles, bartering, say, two fatted calves and a sucking-pig?

MR STEFANIAK: Mr Connolly, you are a lawyer and you should understand. The Government runs three pools and it has a schedule of fees. That is it. That is not negotiable. There are two pools, however, run on contract by private operators, whom we subsidise to an extent and who are able to keep all the moneys they raise from fees. We are not going to subsidise them any more than we do at present; but, if they can put to us a proposal that is different from what we charge for our three indoor pools, they have the ability to do that in their agreement and that is something we will consider. There may well be some very good reasons put up in relation to that.

Mrs Carnell: I ask that further questions be placed on the notice paper.

MR DE DOMENICO: Mr Speaker, Mr Moore asked me a question earlier about the breakdown at the Milk Authority. I said that I would provide Mr Moore with an answer. I am advised that the previous breakdown was caused by a breakdown in the drive chain. There was a review of the maintenance procedures at the time. The most recent breakdown, I am told, was caused by the variations in the quality of the glass provided by the bottle manufacturer - a totally different problem from the first problem and, to a large degree, out of the control of the ACT Milk Authority. However, as a result of the breakdown, there have been ongoing discussions with the manufacturer and it has been stressed that this was an aberration. To avoid a repetition, the ACT Milk Authority is reviewing the quality control of the glass, including investigating the possibility of acquiring some scanning equipment to make sure that it does not happen again. There has also been put into place a review of what further preventative maintenance steps need to be implemented. I can say that the Milk Authority detected the problem on the day it occurred and took action quickly and immediately.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .