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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 5 Hansard (5 May) . . Page.. 1332 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

The fact that our parliamentary system does depend on the Executive being responsible to the parliament is set out in a way in our founding document, the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act. That Act provides quite explicitly that moneys shall not be expended by the Government without them having been appropriately dealt with within the parliament, within the Assembly, and approval for the appropriation granted through the budget process. The Financial Management Act makes a similar provision - and it is a stark and blunt provision - that moneys will not be expended unless they have been appropriated.

There is some argument about whether or not in fact the Government's actions in relation to this matter have infringed the ACT (Self-Government) Act and the Financial Management Act. It is my view that they have. The Government tends to argue the contrary. The Government is seeking advice from senior counsel on whether or not the actions that it took do fit within that legislation. The Labor Party and others are similarly seeking legal advice on the question, though our view is quite firm. We are very much of the view that the advice that we will receive will in fact confirm the view that those vital, fundamental pieces of legislation have not been complied with by this Government.

It is relevant that the Chief Minister, in introducing the Financial Management Act, commented on the extent to which that part of the Financial Management Act - section 6, I believe it was - which requires that no moneys be expended unless there is an appropriation was a fundamental tenet of responsible parliamentary democracy. The Chief Minister explained that in her explanatory memorandum. She put it very well. She put it succinctly that the requirement that the parliament approve the expenditures of public moneys was fundamental to our system of government. Those were the Chief Minister's words. Yet here we have a situation in which, in the view of some of us, there is absolutely no doubt that this Government has expended anywhere between $14m and $20m of taxpayers' money, of ACT residents' money, without having brought it to this place for approval. That is a very serious matter.

There is almost no more serious a matter for us to contemplate than whether or not this Government did in fact act legally. That goes to the heart of the issue we are talking about here. Has this Government acted legally in its expenditures of up to $32m on the Bruce Stadium? That is the fundamental issue. We do need to ask how that happened. The Government has not given a clear answer. It has obfuscated. It has sought to hide behind a range of other provisions within the Financial Management Act. It has sought to rely on fairly vague and ambiguous arrangements in relation to borrowings and loans, and overnight loans and balance day statements. It is a confused situation. The Government's defence of itself relies on a range of confused, undisclosed arrangements with financial institutions.

This motion not only requests that all the papers that relate to those financial transactions be presented to the Assembly but has regard to the debate about the Bruce Stadium; has regard to the debate on the public disclosure of a whole range of issues going to whether or not the business plan for the Bruce Stadium was based on solid ground; has regard to the unanswered questions in terms of usage projections, questions that have been raised about the nature of the contractual arrangements that this Government entered into with the tenants at Bruce Stadium; and has regard to the ACT Government's exposure of the

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