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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 5 Hansard (5 May) . . Page.. 1392 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

I am happy to wear that possibility. I am not quite so comfortable about wearing the possibility of there being some more serious reaction from SOCOG to our tabling of these documents. That would be a matter of some considerable concern to the ACT Government.

Mr Speaker, the second amendment is about the effect of paragraph (3) of the motion. Paragraph (3) as it stands is very broadly drafted and could cover hundreds and hundreds of transactions. I just do not know how many, but there could be a great number of such transactions. I would argue that we should bring paragraph (3) under the heading of paragraph (2). The details should be in relation to the redevelopment of Bruce Stadium. This is about Bruce Stadium. Let us make the request for borrowings details about Bruce Stadium. That is why, arguably, we should amend paragraph (3) to make it less of a fishing exercise. It says, "Any borrowings the Government has done, give us information about".

Ms Carnell: Since self-government?

MR HUMPHRIES: Since self-government potentially, or at least for some time back. Instead, make it apply to developments in respect of Bruce Stadium. I have to say that I disagree with the Chief Minister. It does not go back to self-government; it goes back to 1996. Still, there could be a large number, possibly hundreds, of such dealings which are dealt with there. This is just a grand fishing exercise. With respect, there are a great many documents potentially in that and I think that that is not appropriately part of this motion.

MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (4.32): I want to clarify the point that was just made. I am conducting some sign language here with Mr Rugendyke, but the point was made - the Chief Minister referred to this matter in her earlier speech - that paragraph (3) does deal with any such transaction since the passage of the Financial Management Act. I believe that it did not come into effect until July 1996, so we are not talking about 10 years' worth of transactions. We are, in fact, talking about 21/2 years, which is significantly different. I think it is relevant that the - - -

Ms Carnell: Relevant to what?

MR STANHOPE: It is relevant that members know that the claim that you made in relation to paragraph (3) simply was wrong, Chief Minister. We are not talking about documents going back to the beginning of self-government; we are quite clearly not. You were simply wrong.

MS CARNELL (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (4.33): Mr Speaker, if I could just speak to that. The motion is about Bruce Stadium. Are we in the business of passing motions about putting information about everything on the table? Do we not care about what it is about or why we are asking for it? The Opposition obviously do not know why they are asking for information that is not to do with Bruce Stadium. This motion is quite clear. The rest of it is about Bruce Stadium. I understood from all of the debates that what the Assembly is after is information about Bruce, not about everything in the universe that could have happened. That is simply ridiculous.

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