Page 1430 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 6 April 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
authority. In a report in today’s Canberra Times, Disability ACT is described as having “refused to notify the insurance authority of claims, citing privacy concerns”.
Minister, I understand, however, that the insurance authority has received legal advice that invalidates these privacy concerns. Why did you claim yesterday that your department had not refused to provide adequate details about potential claims?
MR HARGREAVES: With respect to all notifications of reports, the department has notified well within the timeframes all details of incidents that would need to be used to evaluate the risk to the territory. The only piece of information that was withheld was the names of the people involved in the incidents. Everything else, the description of the person, any disability they might carry, the nature of the incident, all the rest of it was provided well within the timeframe.
There was concern that the issue of a person’s name might in fact compromise their privacy. That was discussed and it was determined that the provision of that information to the insurance authority would not compromise people’s privacy. Again, that information was provided to the insurance authority well inside the timeframe. My information is that it was provided a goodly couple of weeks ago. My answer to Mr Stefaniak’s question today, subsequent to Mr Mulcahy’s of yesterday, stands.
MR STEFANIAK: I ask a supplementary question. Minister, has the insurance authority had to decline to accept any potential claims that have been notified by Disability ACT? If so, why?
MR HARGREAVES: The issue is about reported incidents. These are reports. This is all about evaluating the risk to the territory in the event of liability and a claim. This is not about claims. The information provided to the insurance authority is about reports of incidents. It is not about the lodging of claims. In that respect, my department has more than adequately discharged its statutory obligations.
Crime—extradition
MR GENTLEMAN: Mr Speaker, my question is to the Attorney-General. Minister, I understand that you have formally approached the commonwealth government to make a request of the People’s Republic of China for the extradition of a Chinese national in relation to the investigation of an alleged murder in Canberra last year. Are you able to inform the Assembly of the outcome of that request?
MR STANHOPE: Mr Speaker, this is a very important question, particularly in the context of the Australian legal system and the rule of law.
Yes, I can confirm that I wrote to the commonwealth government, through the federal Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Chris Ellison, asking him to make a request of the People’s Republic of China for the extradition of a Chinese national who is wanted in the Australian Capital Territory in connection with an alleged murder. In making the request, I undertook that the ACT government would meet the costs associated with the extradition.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .