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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 5 Hansard (5 May) . . Page.. 1348 ..

Mr Osborne: Just adjourn it and we will come back to it later.

MR HUMPHRIES: I could move to adjourn debate on the motion. Mr Speaker, I want to table some documents in this place. I think shortly another copy of the documents will be arriving from the anteroom for me to look at again here as I am speaking. I will table documents that relate to a loan transaction in 1993 which was engineered by the then Labor Government. It was a loan of $1.5m for ACT Forests. There is a very large number of similarities between the arrangements in respect of borrowing against debt appropriations in that case and the Bruce financing statement which has been discussed in the course of debate today.

I will table those documents in a minute but let me make some points in the meantime. Both of these borrowings were provided for by legislation under the power of the Treasurer to invest public moneys. Both of these transactions were for capital improvement. Both transactions were not specifically covered by an item in an annual appropriation Bill. Both transactions involved loans from the Central Financing Unit. Section 86(1)(g) of the Audit Act and section 38(1)(c) of the Financial Management Act, although in different legislation, were essentially the same. The legislation relied upon in both cases was essentially the same. In both cases the terms and conditions were determined by the Under Treasurer and both of these transactions were audited by the Auditor-General at 30 June in the respective financial years and no qualification was made in either case. I table the documents relating to that particular transaction in 1993.

Mr Moore: The same thing.

MR HUMPHRIES: Exactly the same thing. The Auditor-General commented on those provisions. Mr Berry was involved in those transactions. Mr Connolly was, of course, the Minister who sought it. The Treasurer and Chief Minister, Ms Follett, was also involved in those transactions. They were perfectly legal transactions. They were perfectly above board. They were, in all material respects, identical to the arrangements which had been referred to in this particular case. The question has to be asked: What is the story? (Extension of time granted)

Where is the justification for the words like "scandal" and "misuse of public moneys"? Why did the Follett Government not "misuse public moneys" in 1993 but we, supposedly, have misused public moneys in 1997, 1998 and 1999? Can members answer that question?

Mr Berry: We did not.

MR HUMPHRIES: That is right. Mr Berry has got the point. You did not misuse public moneys in 1993, and we have done exactly the same thing at this stage in this particular transaction. We have done precisely the same thing.

Mr Berry: No, not even close.

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Berry, you speak in this debate and you explain what is different about this approach.

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