Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2005 Week 07 Hansard (Tuesday, 21 June 2005) . . Page.. 2087 ..
MR SESELJA: Had it been established when the question was asked?
MS GALLAGHER: I was not aware of the status of that working party. There are numerous working parties within departments. Ministers cannot be expected to know when every single one of them was established, when they meet and who is on them. It was quite appropriate that we took it on notice. We have done so, and we have provided you with an answer. Subsequently you have come and asked another question which is quite different from the one asked at estimates. So your supplementary is flawed and the assumptions you make are wrong. We will get back to you.
Parkwood Road recycling estate
MRS DUNNE: My question is directed to the Minister for Urban Services and relates to his treatment of tenants at the Parkwood Estate—people whom you, Mr Speaker, have been championing for a number of years.
I refer to documents obtained by my office under the Freedom of Information Act, specifically a document titled “Parkwood Road recycling estate review of management arrangements”, which states that ACT NOWaste is to—and I quote—“establish mechanisms /frameworks to weed out non-contributors”. It is also clear, from the FOI documents, that you yourself have sought advice on how to get rid of non-contributing tenants.
Minister, why do you support the stated policy of getting rid of established small businesses that do not contribute to the NOWaste strategy vision? Why do you think they should be weeded out? And why are you and your officials trying to put honest working people out of business?
MR HARGREAVES: I thank Mrs Dunne for the emotive and over-the-top question! The assertion at the end of that barbed question was that we are trying to put honest working people out of business. That is just a joke. I expected better from Mrs Dunne. I thought she was the performer on the other side of the fence; I might have been wrong.
When we talk about landfill estates and the NOWaste strategy, we are talking about precincts that can contribute to this particular strategy. Using emotive terms such as “weeding out”—
Mrs Dunne: They are your terms!
Mr Pratt: Are you flabbergasted?
MR SPEAKER: Order! Mr Pratt.
MR HARGREAVES: It is not the first time in the history of mankind that those sorts of emotive terms—that phraseology—have been used inappropriately. Let me put this on the record: if there are people who have taken offence at that terminology, I now apologise to them. I have no difficulty with that at all. But I take issue with the assertion that there is some sort of insidious plotting going on to rid the place of something. It is