Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 8 Hansard (21 August) . . Page.. 3027 ..
MR STANHOPE: It is a reflection of the depths to which some will descend to score miserly, appalling political points in this debate.
Mrs Cross: What nonsense.
MR SPEAKER: Mrs Cross, please desist from making further interjections. I remind you of standing order 202 and would encourage you to read it.
MR CORNWELL: Mr question to the Treasurer is in relation to an outage of all-I repeat "all"-overhead lights in Leane Street Hughes since last Friday, 15 August, and which have not yet been repaired by Actew. Upon contacting Actew, a constituent concerned about safety was told that a waiting time of eight days was the normal period for these repairs. It is a good thing it was not the light on the hill, isn't it? Treasurer, could you please confirm that eight days is the standard period for these types of repairs; and, if so, when the outage of such lights poses a significant danger to pedestrians and motorists alike, why should this be an acceptable response time?
MR QUINLAN: Thank you for the question, Mr Cornwell. Off the top of my head, I cannot confirm or deny the period or the veracity of what was communicated to the particular constituent. So that is a question that I will have to take on notice. I would suggest that if you are asking questions like this, some notice would be appropriate because obviously a minister cannot know that level of minutia across all of the agencies under our purview.
MR CORNWELL: Mr Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. Treasurer, is the government indemnified across the ACT against any injury or damage to person or property where it can be shown that the same was caused directly by poor visibility due to such a lighting failure, whether it is in Leane Street, Hughes or anywhere else in the territory?
MR QUINLAN: Again, I would have to take that on notice but I would very much doubt that we had a public liability policy that would incorporate-
MR SPEAKER: I think it is a request for you to offer a legal opinion and to that extent the question is out of order, so you can resume your seat.
Mr Smyth: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question clearly states: is the government indemnified against injury or damage?
MR SPEAKER: I think it went to the question of public liability.
Mr Smyth: No. The supplementary to the Treasurer was: is the government indemnified against any injury or damage? It is a question for-
MR SPEAKER: It assumes that it has a liability in it.
Mr Cornwell: I would be happy if the Treasurer took it on notice, Mr Speaker.