Page 259 - Week 01 - Thursday, 14 February 2019

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


MS LAWDER: Minister, what options are available for event organisers who missed out on this main round of funding to put on popular community events in Brindabella and/or Ginninderra this year?

MR RAMSAY: Event organisers can always put on events. One of the great things about the initiatives that take place across the community is that they do not necessarily rely on government funding. One of the things that I encourage people to do is to look not only to government funding. With respect to the great significance and impact of the arts on community and cultural events, we know that they can be sourced and engaged with in different ways. Organisations, individuals, artists, community events and community organisers are looking at a broad range of ways for not only funding but other forms of support.

Government—ex gratia payment

MS LAWDER: My question is to the Chief Minister. Justice Verity McWilliam in the ACT Supreme Court found in September last year that the Chief Minister had been given incorrect advice in refusing an ex gratia payment to Jack Hartigan for lifelong injuries he suffered when only six years of age in a vicious dog attack in Canberra in 2010. She ordered the Chief Minister to reconsider his decision. Chief Minister, how is it that you made an unlawful decision based on incorrect advice in the first place, and from whom was that advice received?

MR BARR: Any administrative ruling is subject to judicial review under our legislative arrangements. I think the source of the advice to me, as was very well canvassed as we debated it extensively in this chamber, was the ACT treasury.

MS LAWDER: Chief Minister, have you reconsidered your unlawful decision not to make an ex gratia payment to Jack Hartigan? If so, what is that decision?

MR BARR: The premise of the question is incorrect; it was not unlawful to make a decision not to grant an ex gratia payment. It cannot be allowed to stand that it is unlawful for the Treasurer to refuse an ex gratia payment. That, I presume, is not what Ms Lawder is seeking to imply in her question. I would hope not, but the wording of the question could lead one to believe that it is unlawful for the Treasurer to refuse to make such a payment.

In relation to the matter, treasury have responded to the advice and determination of the court in relation to having a clearer set of guidelines for determination of these matters. Contact has been made with the family and the family’s lawyers as to whether they wish to provide any further information so I can make a decision. The latest advice a couple of weeks ago was that were yet to provide any further information. I will give them that courtesy. I am not Peter Dutton; I will not remake a decision 30 seconds after a court has made a different determination. I will give the family time to provide, through their lawyers, further information and will make the decision in due course.


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