Page 4414 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 19 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The Raiders undertake to contribute the sum of $1m for the upgrade provided the money is utilised for rugby league purposes and that it is understood that timing and contribution of such sums is dependent upon the New South Wales Rugby League making those funds available no later than 31 December 1990.
If the bush lawyers in this Assembly could see how you could drive a truck through the terms of this agreement, they can imagine what the wording of the rest of the agreement was. However, I shall return to that legal analysis in a moment. Members are aware of how $1m was paid into the AIS trust fund following discussions with the member for Canberra, Ros Kelly. The public now has a legitimate reason to ask where the $1m is and why it was allowed to go back to the New South Wales Rugby League.
At this stage, listeners may be forming the view that the Rugby League has been the beneficiary of an extremely generous arrangement. Certainly, the document recommended by Price Waterhouse to form the basis of an agreement became literally the agreement and, on the advice available to me informally and from the Territory Solicitor, a legally binding agreement had been entered into. Certainly, the Territory performed its side of the agreement and the league did not. It is as simple as that.
The $1m was payable on completion of the upgrade, but such payment could be deferred until 31 December 1990. It did not necessarily follow, in my view as Attorney, that the $1m was not due and payable until a final agreement had been resolved. In my view, this latter argument was a polemical device used by the league to dodge payment. Members should recall Mr Whalan's advice to the Assembly on 25 July 1989 that "one group which has finalised an arrangement with the ACT Government ... is the Canberra Raiders".
The first challenge facing the Government after the Raiders defaulted on 31 December was to claim, in effect, a fundamental breach of the agreement. Correspondence took place. Members are aware of some of those details. In a nutshell, what we have on our hands is an agreement made without legal advice from the Government's point of view. The agreement was not submitted to the Government Law Office, nor do the records reveal that legal assistance was sought by the then Government. In legal terms, the agreement can only be described as quaint. For example, clause 10 of the agreement was headed "Legal Matters". It reads as follows:
It is understood that within the context of this agreement that should any legal matter arise that obstructs the basis of this agreement being complied with, for whatever reason, the Raiders retain the right to vary the income offered herein to the Trust downwards by the amount by whatever such obstructions are imposed upon the Raiders.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .