Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 2 Hansard (11 March) . . Page.. 591 ..
Mr Berry: On a point of order: This is getting ridiculous, Mr Speaker. If the Chief Minister cannot answer the question - she took it on notice - let her go away, get the answer and bring it back.
MR SPEAKER: She has taken it on notice.
MR HARGREAVES: I, like Mr Osborne, would like to ask a question about the St Edmund's and St Clare's issue, and I hope that I would only have to ask it once. The Auditor-General's report No. 8 of 1998 - an authority greatly relied on in debate by the Chief Minister - makes a point that the ACT is asset rich. The Auditor-General argues that the Government could benefit from an examination of the sale of potential assets like public hospitals, schools, roads, public housing, parks, electricity, water and sewerage assets and many more.
Mr Smyth: Who is the question to?
MR HARGREAVES: My question, Mr Speaker, for those opposite who are so curious, is to the Minister for Urban Services.
Mr Smyth: Thank you.
MR HARGREAVES: It is a pleasure. The pleasure is all yours. Minister, will you confirm that you have no intention of putting those particular assets up for sale, and will you confirm or deny that you have commissioned a secret, independent report from Tim Shaw from Demtel Pty Ltd, suggesting that you can buy a bus stop, you can purchase a park, you can have your own hospital, you can gain a guvvie house or even perhaps snare a sewer. But wait; there is more, to use the Chief Minister's words. He even offers a free set of steak knives with every road you buy. Can you confirm or deny that?
MR SPEAKER: You cannot announce Executive policy or make an expression of opinion. So, I do not know how you are going to get on.
MR SMYTH: Mr Speaker, I have no knowledge of Tim Shaw's firm being offered a consultancy. I would have to take that on notice and find out for the member.
MR HARGREAVES: I have a supplementary question - and, like Mr Osborne, I am going to have to ask the first question first. So, with your indulgence, I will do that. To make it without a preamble, I shall put a comma in between the two questions. The question is: Will you confirm that you have no intention to sell those potential assets like public hospitals, schools, roads, public housing, parks, electricity, water and sewerage assets and many more, and why have you taken so long to address the St Edmund's and St Clare's issue by putting up a mere bunch of signs saying, "Please don't park here"? Is this nothing more than a revenue-making exercise and you are actually not going to do anything meaningful at all there?