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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 5 Hansard (5 May) . . Page.. 1388 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

I think there is a lot in what Mr Smyth says in terms of process. How many investigations, how many people, do we want to look at this matter? Provided there is due process - and we do have due process here - the legitimate concerns of those opposite and any members of the crossbench in terms of properly scrutinising this matter can be readily met. We already have people seeking legal opinions on some points of contention. I do not think anyone is alleging in this house that anything that has happened has been occasioned by fraud - that is not being asserted by anyone - or through any illegal motives. I would tend to agree with Mr Smyth that this is very much a fishing expedition, a trawl.

We have an Auditor-General - a very expert person - who is actually paid to analyse and has the expertise to analyse documents of this kind. He is involved. Obviously, he would request these documents and any other documents that exist in relation to this matter. It is his job to go through those with a fine toothcomb and make a report to the Assembly, which can then act upon it. If there is need for people in the Assembly to look at the documents that he refers to, that would occur. That is a very proper process. The Auditor-General, as members are well aware, is often very critical of government in his reports. As Mr Smyth indicates, when the Auditor-General is critical of the Government those opposite are the first to say, "Government, you have acted incorrectly there. You need to fix it". When the Auditor-General brings down something that they do not particularly like, they bag it. We have seen that happen, too.

I do not think that anyone disputes that the Auditor-General is the proper person in the proper office to look at matters such as this one and then advise the Government and the Assembly and, through them, the people of Canberra as to what has occurred, what should occur, what is wrong, what is right, and what can be improved. The matters go off then to a committee of the Assembly which, with the expert advice and opinion that the Auditor-General is able to bring to bear, can look at them further. I cannot see the benefit of having all these documents produced for the Assembly when we also have the Auditor-General looking at this matter and we have a number of legal opinions being sought. How many investigations do you want running concurrently in relation to the same matter?

Mr Speaker, I do note that, throughout all the cacophony of criticism by the Opposition of what has occurred, the Chief Minister has indicated that the Bruce Stadium transaction has always been on the table. What the Government has intended to do and what the financing arrangements were have always been in the open. The Opposition seems to be asserting that there has been something that was completely inappropriate. All right, we are looking at the legalities of that. A number of people are doing that. But I seem to recall - no doubt this was mentioned this morning - that the Follett Government adopted a very similar procedure itself. The incident I recall was in relation to matters to do with ACT Forests. There was a very similar process indeed. Whilst most of the members of the Opposition are new, there are still a couple of old stayers there who were in Cabinet then and who should be well aware of that process. I think there is a certain amount of hypocrisy coming from the Opposition in relation to this matter.

Mr Speaker, this motion is, quite clearly, a fishing expedition. If the Auditor-General was not looking into this matter, if nothing else was occurring, it may well be very reasonable to have the relevant documents placed on the table. But the matter has gone

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