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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 7 Hansard (30 June) . . Page.. 1786 ..

MS CARNELL (continuing):

Mr Stanhope also indicated in his speech that somehow the Government had done nothing to rectify the problem. Again, Mr Speaker, rubbish. As soon as the Government was advised that there may be a problem, we took immediate action. After seeking advice from Parliamentary Counsel, a guideline was made by me in terms which retrospectively authorised investments such as Bruce Stadium and the other, more routine, transactions that were affected by this procedural flaw. It was done immediately we knew that we had a problem. After this guideline was made, Mr Tracey was asked to advise about its effect on the validity of the Bruce transactions. He concluded that the guideline rendered the transactions lawful.

Even though the financing of the Bruce Stadium upgrade was legal under section 38 of the Financial Management Act, the Government acknowledges that some Assembly members have some concerns about the current structure of the redevelopment and the financing arrangements. In response to these concerns, the Government has taken the view that the appropriate way to resolve the issue and take it forward in a manner that will be to members' satisfaction is to seek to include funds for the redevelopment of the stadium in an Appropriation Act; in other words, Mr Speaker, responding to the requirements and to the concerns of this place. Members will be aware that amendments have been circulated to achieve this outcome.

I should point out, Mr Speaker, that the private sector did not walk away from this project, as Mr Stanhope seemed to indicate in his speech. Mr Speaker, we have actually circulated a letter from the Commonwealth Bank making that totally clear - maybe Mr Stanhope was just forgetting some of the facts in his speech. Mr Speaker, at the time of the Government's decision to seek to include the full cost in an Appropriation Act, the Government was also considering a proposal from the Commonwealth Bank which would have resulted in the private sector providing the majority of the required funding. This private sector proposal worked for the benefit of both the ACT community and the private sector because it minimised the ACT Government's direct investment, whilst ensuring a high-quality stadium and a commercial return to the private sector investors. Whilst the structure may have appeared complicated to some members of the Assembly who are not involved in investment and financial transactions on a daily basis, it worked because it provided the private investor with a commercial return which was maximised through access to depreciation benefits and limited the Government's direct exposure.

Mr Speaker, as a consequence of this problem with the lack of guidelines, the Under Treasurer has already directed an immediate review of the Central Financing Unit, the Superannuation Provision and Insurance Unit and OFM generally to ensure that all the necessary delegations and instruments to effect the proper administration of the FMA are in place or will be put in place. Mr Speaker, that happened immediately we realised there was a problem. A similar review in relation to all agencies that operate within the boundaries of the FMA is under way. It is being facilitated by OFM to ensure that all the practices and procedures under the FMA have been complied with across the whole of government. So, Mr Speaker, any allegations by Mr Stanhope that we have done nothing are simply untrue.

Mr Speaker, I will now turn to the allegations specifically levelled at me by Mr Stanhope. It has been alleged by the Labor Party that I have acted unlawfully. In fact, they seem to have used that as the basis for this whole no-confidence motion.

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