Page 2765 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 14 August 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
subcontractors to believe that Shelleys were safe to deal with, then in those circumstances the Government was negligent and in those circumstances the Government should step in and help the small business person. I mention in passing the events of recent months in Victoria. No negligence was alleged on behalf of the Victorian Government in the Farrow collapse, nonetheless the Government was prepared to help the small investors in that unfortunate collapse.
Precedents do have to be set some time, Mr Duby. The Government does have to step in to help the individual. In this case we are alleging that the Government knew what was happening and acted in such a way as to encourage the contractors to continue to deal with Shelleys. That, of course, was denied in the report of the Canberra Times on 4 August which said:
Asked if the Government had known about Shelley's financial woes, the spokesman said that he was not aware that the company had been in trouble.
Mr Acting Speaker, we believe that we can show that that statement was false. We believe that we can document that the Government did know of the position of the R and G Shelley group and acted in such a way as to encourage subcontractors to believe that their interests were being looked after by this Government; acted in such a way as to encourage subcontractors to believe that it continued to be safe to deal with the Shelley group. Subcontractors have now found to their horror that these statements were not accurate.
In the Canberra Chronicle of 31 July the Government's statement of 4 August that it was unaware that the company had been in any trouble is clearly refuted. I will quote from that article on page 3 of the Canberra Chronicle, 31 July. Again, we always have an unnamed Government spokesperson. It stated:
A Government spokesman said Shelley's financial strife had come as a complete surprise, although he had been aware Shelley's had had some cash flow problems at the beginning of the year.
Mr Acting Speaker, that is a statement that the Government had been aware of the cash flow problems of Shelleys earlier this year. It is our understanding that on 20 March 1990 ACT Public Works wrote to the R and G Shelley group making it clear that the Government was aware of the extent of Shelleys cash flow difficulties, and was aware that these cash flow difficulties were, at that time, affecting payments to subcontractors. This letter imposed certain conditions on Shelleys with respect to project managements, and in particular, it required monthly audits of their accounts. I will read into the record the conditions that were imposed upon R and G Shelley on 20 March 1990.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .