Page 92 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 12 February 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
trust is being shattered as financial institution after financial institution around the country comes, for some reason or other, into disrepute. Usually that disrepute has to do with their lack of care for their clients and a gung ho approach to finances that has not been seen before. We have seen it in Canberra with the merger of the Canberra Building Society and the Advance Bank. I think a number of questions still need to be answered about that situation and particularly about the directors of the various institutions involved in that situation.
Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table some documents which illustrate the difficulties that some people have in dealing with banks and which illustrate the attitude that banks have to their clients.
MR SPEAKER: For the information of members of the Assembly: I believe that there is a Federal case before the courts, matter No. 1481 of 1991. I believe that if you table those reports at this time you will prejudice that issue, which is sub judice, and therefore I believe that it is not appropriate for you to be given permission to table those documents at this time.
MR MOORE: Mr Speaker, the documents that I deal with here certainly deserve to be tendered to this Assembly. It is in the public interest that people understand clearly the ramifications of the Westpac Bank loans affairs. It is a most significant issue, and I believe that it is appropriate that the issue be dealt with in this manner. I have taken legal advice myself, and there is some question over whether or not this matter is sub judice anyway, Mr Speaker.
I understand that quite a number of members of the Assembly have the particular documents at hand. There comes a point at which we must question a situation where a legal firm clearly explains that the way they can get away with a shonky deal is to ensure that the litigation extends, and extends, and extends - because they have so much money themselves and because they can continue to use the courts in that way. But the people who are trying to get before the courts and get what is rightfully theirs will be eliminated - not because of the justice of the case, but because of the legal games involved in the case. This raises a great question over justice and what can be achieved as far as that goes.
So I would request, Mr Speaker, that you reconsider the ruling you have just made, firstly, because I doubt that it is in fact sub judice and, secondly, because the nature of the documents makes it so important a question of justice as well as legality - because there seems to be a great distinction between justice and legality in this particular case as it stands at the moment. It is quite clear from the documents that this is the lawyers' attempt to ensure that the legal games override justice on the particular issues. So I ask you once again, Mr Speaker, to reconsider that matter, and to allow me to table these documents.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .