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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 8 Hansard (27 June) . . Page.. 2357 ..

Mr Berry: I am just adopting your standards. That is all.

MR HUMPHRIES: No. As far as I can recall, Mr Speaker, we have supported the position that joint ventures ought to be protected by this. We have always supported the position that joint ventures ought to be protected. I say to members of the crossbench: Do not let the Labor Party off so lightly, for goodness sake.

Mr Moore: They are our friends tonight.

MR HUMPHRIES: Yes, they are your friends tonight. I can see that. But the question needs to be asked. After supporting the position that joint ventures ought to be shielded for the last five or six years, mostly while in government, now suddenly they are doing a switch because they say it relates to health. Why in relation to Health? What is different about Health? Why in relation to Health?

Mr Moore: What did Stein say about joint ventures?

MR HUMPHRIES: The Stein report, as I recall, said that joint ventures ought to be shielded even from the Auditor-General in some circumstances. I am not sure that this was supported by Stein but the Government's position was that joint ventures in which the Government had a very small role ought not be subject to scrutiny by the Auditor-General and that, I think, has been supported by the committee that brought down its report today. Okay, I accept that the Assembly is going to decide that joint ventures should now be open to public scrutiny, but I would say to members: Do not get into a position where we have done it for this particular Bill and the next time the Labor Party is in government they revert back to the model that says, "No, we have to protect joint ventures from exposure to scrutiny". On what principle are we doing this? I hope a member of the Opposition can explain that to me, because I do not understand.

MR MOORE (6.20): Mr Speaker, perhaps I can assist there. The principles that are being applied here are the very ones on which the Liberal Party went to the last election, openness and accountability. How many times did we hear the words "openness" and "accountability", and then we see clauses like this? Mr Humphries said, "I wonder how many times Mr Moore has supported this?". I remind him that I have said quite a number of times in this house over the last few years that I simply do not believe in the principle of commercial-in-confidence other than in tenders.

Mr Humphries: I accept that.

MR MOORE: You have often heard me say that, so that puts it in perspective. I do accept that tenders, until they are opened, should be kept in a safe and nobody should look at them; but once something is opened I do not believe that there should be any such thing as commercial-in-confidence. It applies to that extent, as far as I am concerned. However, I think that Ms Tucker, having drawn this to our attention, it assists us in helping the Liberal Party deliver its policy of openness and accountability. It is amazing how quickly it disappears from the agenda once people get into government.

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