Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 8 Hansard (26 October) . . Page.. 2092 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Mr Speaker, the one thing that has been partially drawn to attention is that there was, supposedly, a piece of misinformation in a tender document; that the tender document contained an inaccurate date for the auction. I am advised that it is quite common for this information to be disseminated not just in writing but also by word of mouth, by telephone, by e-mail, and so on. In this case what happened was that the error contained in the original tender documentation was corrected for all seven tender invitees by telephone. All seven had their documents corrected by that process. Indeed, Mr Speaker, all seven put in a tender by the due date, so they must clearly have known that the information contained in the original document was at fault in some way. If that is the best the Opposition can do, I really think they should be giving up and going home.

Mr Speaker, let me cover a few other things mentioned in the argument. We on the Government benches do not deny that there was a connection between Mr Harold Hird and Harold Hird and Associates. He was the chief auctioneer of that company for quite some time before the election held earlier this year for the Legislative Assembly. It is true that he still owns the business name. But, Mr Speaker, the question is this: What would you do were you in the position that he was in to divorce yourself from the activities of the company as appropriate? Mr Hird saw the problem when he became a member of the Assembly. He realised that he should not really be the chief auctioneer for this company in circumstances where the company was doing business with the ACT Government - not much business, I might say - and he took the right decision to step back from the activities of the company. He resigned as chief auctioneer of the company. He did the right thing and he deserves credit for having done so.

Mr Hird did not hold shares in the company as a member of this Assembly. He is, of course, married to one of the shareholders. The solution there, I assume, is that he divorces his wife - a somewhat extreme reaction, I think, to the tawdry claims of the Opposition - or that the firm ceases to be involved with many of the business arrangements it may have been involved with in the past, or that it changes its name, a name it has carried for, I think, some 20 or 30 years. Mr Speaker, all of those options are clearly and patently absurd, and those people opposite know that very well.

On the question of the Hymans bid, Mr Whitecross covered himself in considerable glory! The Government, as I understand his argument, should have considered or accepted the bid of $24,000 over the bid of $250. Very logical! The reason for that, Mr Whitecross says, is that they should have been able to do something different with the auction; tittered up the auction so that there was a more elaborate process. They would have taken the cost of hiring the hall; they would have provided lots of nice nibblies, and food and drink, and maybe some frilly banners and so on. Mr Speaker, for $24,000 you could take out a full page in the Times of London; you could have slave women peeling grapes for the people attending the auction and putting them in their individual mouths as they poured champagne down their throats. For $24,000 you get an awful lot of hospitality. Mr Speaker, where do these people get off? We should accept a $24,000 bid over a $250 bid, for goodness sake!

Mr Whitecross: No, I did not say that.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .