Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 7 Hansard (30 June) . . Page.. 1778 ..
MR STANHOPE (continuing):
Another defence run by the Government is that a similar technical breach of the law occurred in New South Wales, was uncovered by the New South Wales Auditor-General, and fixed without fanfare or the prospect of any parliamentary sanction. (Further extension of time granted) In fact, as the New South Wales Auditor, Mr Tony Harris, told ABC radio on 28 April, the New South Wales Government spent $2.8 billion that the parliament had not authorised. But it was not a matter taken lightly. Mr Harris told the ABC:
... the Government took it seriously and the Government amended its processes so that the chances of it happening again are much reduced ... You'd like them to be a bit more conscious that the law is there and the Government is subject to the law. No man, no person is above the law, and the Government is not above the law.
Of course, the Chief Minister now proposes, in an effort to create some semblance of contrition, to make financial management guidelines disallowable, which is a curious thing, given her comments during debate on the Financial Management Bill in 1996. The Chief Minister spoke against such a proposal to make a guideline prescribing an investment disallowable. She said then:
... this amendment ... is unacceptable because controlling investments by law, including regulations, is flawed in principle and is ineffective in practice ... It is far better to rely on openness and transparency. Controls just do not work. All of the guidelines will be visible and transparent.
Mr Speaker, how are non-existent guidelines, or retrospective guidelines, in any sense open and transparent? Interestingly, the Chief Minister went on in the 1996 debate to say:
The investments are for the purpose of liquidity management. The key is to maximise returns for the Territory and minimise risk ... Investments are not for any policy or political purpose ... The Territory should not be disadvantaged in its ability to respond quickly to unanticipated changes in market conditions; but a disallowable instrument would, and certainly could, involve significant time delays.
It is up to the members of this Assembly to judge whether an investment in Bruce Stadium is a question of liquidity management. It is up to the members of this Assembly to judge when the Government decided its commitment to the Bruce Stadium redevelopment was an investment designed to maximise returns to the Territory and not a capital injection in bricks and mortar and grass. It is up to the members of this Assembly to judge whether that decision was for any policy or political purpose.
Mr Speaker, if the Government's proposed corporate structure to secure the backing of the Commonwealth Bank looked like a map of the Cayman Islands, then this tortuous concoction of defences is Captain Hook's map leading to the buried treasure. And none of it stands scrutiny, as every member of this Assembly well knows.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .