Page 2776 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 14 August 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR COLLAERY: Not at all, Mr Acting Speaker. We are trying to be statesman-like in the protection of the ACT revenue and to ensure that justice and equity prevails in relation to these contracts. To put this little debate into perspective, it may interest the Opposition to know that there are more than 3,200 contracts afoot at the moment in the Territory between the Crown, in its right, and other parties. This debate has centred around one particular incident. It would have been better, Mr Acting Speaker, if Mr Connolly could have pointed to a pattern of conduct to support his case. He has not done that. I do not believe he has put a case forward.
Let me come back to the narrow focus upon which the Opposition has debated this matter. Let me say that for my part, as a member of the Government, I have the utmost faith in my colleague Mr Duby. He has an extremely sharp financial mind which he has shown in all the discussions that I have attended with him. I have the utmost faith in the manner in which he discharges his duty and his functions. He has my confidence and I dare say that of his other colleagues in the Alliance Government.
It is not a viable proposition, Mr Acting Speaker, to bring forward a matter which has been the subject only recently of an application to the Supreme Court and to seek to put the Government on to the back foot to debate issues which it, itself, has to advance in its own cause and the cause of the people of the Territory. I say to Mr Berry and to Mr Connolly that I invite them, if they wish, to discuss the general terms and conditions of contracts entered into by the Territory with my law officers. The form of contract, of course, is one which is endorsed nationwide. Further, I invite the Opposition when it wishes to bring forward matters which have entered civil court proceedings to consult with me as Attorney-General first. I am quite prepared to allow my law officers to brief the shadow Attorney-General. So, in summary, I regret the discussion of a matter of public importance today. It is an issue of importance but it may well prejudice other positions. It may well not act to the benefit of the workers and the subcontractors the Opposition purports to want to protect.
MR JENSEN (4.08): It is very interesting that having raised this matter of public importance the Opposition is only prepared to put two speakers forward to speak on the issue. I would have thought that it would have been appropriate when bringing on a matter of public importance to have speakers lined up ready to talk. You do not put it on, have two speakers, and then leave the running to the Government, which is what is about to happen.
Members interjected.
MR JENSEN: We did not bring on the matter of public importance. It was brought on by the Opposition. This is the opportunity for the Opposition to bring forward matters
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .