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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 8 Hansard (26 August) . . Page.. 2428 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

Mr Speaker, I now turn to the other statement, by Ms McRae, on the same day. She told the Assembly:

When you engaged Fay Richwhite and Associates to conduct the audit of ACTEW were you aware that Fay Richwhite and Associates have been involved in tax rorts in the Cook Islands which are estimated to have cost the Australian taxpayers millions of dollars, and tax rorts which are estimated to have cost the New Zealand Government between $2m and $4m and the Japanese Revenue Office up to $400m?

Once again, like Mr Berry's statement, this statement made by Ms McRae was one which would cause Assembly members and members of the community to believe that the company had been found guilty of tax-related offences - - -

Mr Berry: No; we said "tax rorts".

MRS CARNELL: No, you did not. You said that they had done it.

Mr Berry: Tax rorts, yes.

MRS CARNELL: You said that they had been involved in them.

Mr Berry: Yes, we did.

MRS CARNELL: Okay; spot on. So, we will continue on that basis, Mr Speaker.

The community could have been forgiven for believing that this company had been found guilty of tax-related offences against these governments. It was an unambiguous statement presented as fact by Ms McRae, not as an allegation which was yet to be proven or disproven. Mr Speaker, the questions by the Opposition related directly to an inquiry which was conducted by the former Chief Justice of New Zealand, Sir Ronald Davison, into allegations made by the new Treasurer, Winston Peters. Mr Peters alleged that a number of companies, among them Fay Richwhite and Associates, had engaged in fraudulent conduct over taxation deals in the Cook Islands and that the Inland Revenue Department and the Serious Fraud Office had been corrupt in failing to properly investigate these financial transactions. (Quorum formed) It was about these claims that Mr Berry and Ms McRae directed their questions to me on 26 June, but with one important distinction. They chose to present them not as allegations but as statements of fact. So, were they facts, Mr Speaker? Had they been proven by any court or board of inquiry? The simple answer is no.

Debate interrupted.

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