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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 7 Hansard (30 June) . . Page.. 1791 ..

MS CARNELL (continuing):

to be in an Appropriation Bill, which is not the case, I have to say, that $1.5m loan to forestry operations should have been separately appropriated. It was not, Mr Speaker, because it did not have to be. These funds were also used to provide a loans facility between departments, to provide an overdraft capacity for departments and to provide seed funding for new projects. So, it was not just a loan to forestry; it went much further than that.

For the record, Mr Speaker, I think it is important to run through a number of things that have happened previously to show that what I am saying is quite valid. Working capital advances were issued by ACTBIT - that is, the CFU predecessor, for those who were not here then - in 1992-93, and I will just use that year. Capital advances were issued to Environment and Conservation, to the land section, to Urban Services, to forestry, to the Canberra Theatre, to the CIT and to the Agents Board. All of those entities got working capital advances from ACTBIT. And guess what, Mr Speaker? These working capital advances were not listed anywhere in any Appropriation Act, nor were they approved by the Assembly. So, if you use Mr Stanhope's logic here, the Labor Government spent money that was not appropriated.

Mr Speaker, who can forget the famous VITAB loan, the money that had to be loaned to ACTTAB to get it out of the hole that Mr Berry had created for it? Guess what, Mr Speaker? This money, all $3.1m of it, was never separately appropriated. It was loaned to ACTTAB by ACTBIT. It was not approved by the Assembly; it was loaned under these provisions by ACTBIT to ACTTAB. In summary, the financing of Bruce Stadium did not need to be included in an Appropriation Act and I think, Mr Speaker, that I have cited enough cases to show that this has happened regularly.

Mr Speaker, another issue raised by Mr Stanhope was that of disclosure. It has been suggested by the Labor Party that the Government attempted to mask or conceal the transactions in relation to Bruce Stadium, thereby somehow concealing its motives. For the benefit of members, I refute this suggestion right here and now. The arrangements were reviewed by the Auditor-General, an Estimates Committee, the Chief Minister's Portfolio Standing Committee, chaired by Mr Quinlan himself, and the Standing Committee on Urban Services, without any adverse comments being received - none, Mr Speaker. So, what was disclosed? In the financial statements for the Chief Minister's Department for the 1997-98 financial year you will find references on pages 188, 198, 200, 204 and 209 of volume 2. On page 200, in a note to the financial statements, it is disclosed:

Absolute disclosure, Mr Speaker, line and verse. Remember, these financial statements were then audited by the Auditor-General, who provided an unqualified opinion on 21 September 1998. The statements were then referred to the Assembly's Estimates Committee, which also made no comment about the Bruce Stadium loan arrangements, either during the public hearings on 19 October 1998 or in its final report on

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