Page 4642 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 15 December 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
This accounts for a loan of $1.7m, but the question remains: Who was loaned the other $214m; for what purpose; and, most importantly, were these loans secured? Company documents show that Halbear Pty Ltd, Australian company No. 003 443 338, was established in January 1988 and dissolved in September 1993. During this five-year period up to January this year, Halbear Pty Ltd failed to submit a single annual return to the Australian Securities Commission. This raises the serious question: Was any action taken during the five-year period to recover the $1.7m debt from a company that was repeatedly breaking the law by not submitting annual returns? Such action would simply be standard banking practice to protect their loan.
After ASC deregistration proceedings during 1993, Halbear Pty Ltd submitted a 1989 annual return on 3 September this year, but it was dissolved two weeks later. Halbear company records list its two shareholders as Salvatore - - -
Mr Connolly: Madam Speaker, I rise to a point of order. This is a matter of public importance in which very serious allegations are being made as to the solvency and alleged criminal conduct of a major financial institution. As far as I can follow from the debate, Mr Stevenson is making allegations about criminal conduct that occurs in New South Wales in relation to a New South Wales institution. I would question whether that falls within the guidelines for a matter of public importance. Certainly, making allegations that a bank is insolvent is one of the most irresponsible things that a person could do under parliamentary privilege; but the point of order I take is to question whether it is appropriate in the form of a matter of public importance in relation to this jurisdiction to make allegations about criminal conduct or alleged criminal conduct in another.
MADAM SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr Connolly. Would you wait a moment, please, Mr Stevenson? The concern at hand, Mr Stevenson, is that I allowed the MPI in the first place because I assumed that you were going to talk about "the increasing concern by Canberrans". An MPI has to be about matters that relate to the jurisdiction of the ACT and to the responsibilities of people of the ACT. Let me explain. In the course of your speech you have strayed right away from issues of concern to Canberrans. I have to be convinced that when you continue you are really talking about issues of concern to Canberrans that relate to the Canberra jurisdiction. Otherwise I will have to rule your remarks irrelevant, and the nature of your MPI then out of order.
Mr De Domenico: On that point of order, Madam Speaker: I ask you to take into account also the fact that the State Bank, the bank that Mr Stevenson was referring to, is the bank of this Government, and it also operates in the ACT. I think a lot of people in the ACT would be very concerned.
MADAM SPEAKER: I think that was, in part, what I was inferring in my ruling, Mr De Domenico - that that link has to be shown. What Mr Stevenson is alleging, because an MPI is a matter of public importance in relation to this jurisdiction, has to be absolutely clearly linked to responsibilities of people in the ACT. Is that reasonable, Mr Stevenson? Please continue.
MR STEVENSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Many shareholders and policyholders of the GIO and the State Bank live in our area. Were I not to bring this up, and were matters not to be investigated correctly that do have an effect on people in the ACT, and, indeed, our own Government, as Mr De Domenico correctly mentioned, I would be lax indeed. I shall continue.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .