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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 9 Hansard (28 August) . . Page.. 2697 ..

Housing Waiting List

MS REILLY: Mr Speaker, my question is to the Minister for Housing, Mr Stefaniak. In the Assembly yesterday, in answer to a question, it was said that the waiting list for tenants of public housing in the ACT was a little less than 4,000. Can you tell me the exact number of people on the waiting list? What is the composition of this list by gender and by age, family type and the type of housing requested? Does this number, a little less than 4,000, include those who are already in ACT public housing and are waiting for a transfer to a different location or a different type of house?

MR STEFANIAK: Starting with A.B. Aardvark, I think that might be a little bit difficult, Ms Reilly. I will certainly have to take that question on notice. There might be one or two points in there which might be somewhat difficult, but I will take that on notice and get back to you with what information we can provide.

MS REILLY: I appreciate that very much and I look forward to the answer. Yesterday it was also said that you had consulted with people about the type of housing - - -

Mr Humphries: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I had understood, Mr Speaker, that a question asked of a Minister could be followed by a supplementary question to elucidate or clarify something which had been stated in the Minister's response. Taking a question on notice does not give rise, with respect, to either Ms McRae's or Ms Reilly's supplementary question. It is simply a second question, pure and simple. If she wanted that information in the first place she should have asked for it in the main question, not in a supplementary question.

MR SPEAKER: Mr Humphries's point is that questions seeking detailed information should really be placed on the notice paper. You cannot expect Ministers to be able to answer off the cuff. I suppose, though, that, if people want to waste the opportunity to ask a question by having that response, that is in order. However, on the matter, first of all, of Ms McRae's question, it has been the practice that if a question has been taken on notice it is permissible to ask a supplementary question if it then seeks additional information. What Ms McRae did I find perfectly in order. It is adding to the answer that Mr Stefaniak, in due course, will give. In relation to Ms Reilly's supplementary question, she has not got that far into the question that I know whether or not it is part of the original one or not, but I will rule against her if it is not part of it. Ms Reilly, continue.

MS REILLY: My first question was in relation to the waiting list. My second question, also in relation to the waiting list - - -

Mrs Carnell: It cannot be a second question.

MS REILLY: All right, my supplementary question; I apologise.

Ms McRae: You request additional information, my dear.

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