Page 629 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 12 April 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR STEVENSON: One could argue anything, but it is not a tenable argument; it is not a realistic argument. The deal was not safe for the ACT. Mr Berry said that it was and I suggest that that was misleading. One can ask whether that was deliberately misleading or whether that was inadvertently misleading, because he may have believed that.
Another point, and this is vital, is to do with the bona fides of a company that this Territory was looking at dealing with. I suggest that when it comes to taxpayers' money one of the major responsibilities for a government, any government, is to make absolutely certain that we do not jeopardise taxpayers' money by commercial deals. A lot of people would say that governments should not be involved in commercial deals, and one can understand why. If the Government is going to get involved in commercial deals it should make absolutely certain that everything is checked. That does not mean to say that one could not end up with problems - this is true in any situation - but you should minimise the possibility of that happening.
Mr De Domenico: Before the contract was signed.
MR STEVENSON: Before the deal goes ahead. In this case it was not an ordinary commercial deal. We are talking about gambling; potentially we are talking about vast sums of money. In this situation there is no doubt that this Assembly and the Government had a vital role to play to make sure that we did not do anything that endangered the ACT. Mr Berry told the Assembly on more than one occasion, in answer to questions, that the bona fides of the company directors had been checked out by Price Waterhouse. He did not say that they had been checked out by the Government Solicitor's Office or the Treasury, and he did not need to. That was not their role. Mr Berry said on 23 November:
I was given assurances about that - the legality and financial security of the arrangement - by the Treasury and the Government Solicitor's Office.
Indeed, that is their role. It is the Government's role to make certain that the bona fides are checked out. That responsibility falls directly on the Government. The Government is not necessarily expected to go out and do those searches. We do not expect Mr Berry to start checking records and to inquire into this, that and the other. It is reasonable that someone be hired to do these things as well as to have the involvement of the police. Mr Berry said in answer to questions that Price Waterhouse was hired to do these things, but I suggest that they were not hired to check out the bona fides. There is a big difference between a company check and the bona fides.
Mr Berry: I explained that in my speech.
MR STEVENSON: Perhaps you could do it again because there is a great difference. Bona fides involves good faith and the character of people, to a large degree, and not just the monetary situation. On that specific point, Mr Berry did mention - this may be the point he refers to - that the company, VITAB, was required to put forward a security deposit of $50,000 which, I am told, resides with ACTTAB. In other words, we have the money and if the contract were broken that would go. That is not a $2 sum, I agree.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .