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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 7 Hansard (30 June) . . Page.. 1874 ..

MR RUGENDYKE (continuing):

It is clear to me that it would have been an appropriately conservative approach from the Government to undertake a capital injection for Bruce. This is the mechanism designed to cover appropriation requirements and remove exposing the Government to unlawful risks. If external finance was secured, it still could have been utilised to offset the loan repayments. Still the Government backed itself to secure the private sector finance before its self-imposed deadline of 30 June 1998. It did not come. The Government knew for more than six months that it had to come up with the money, and, rather than taking the safe option, gambled on the money coming through.

When the private sector finance did not materialise, on 28 June, the Chief Minister approved the Commonwealth Bank overnight loan. There was no problem, according to Mr Tracey, with taking out the loan. The problem was with paying it back 24 hours later, with Territory money that was not appropriated.

The Government failed to meet its responsibility in seeking appropriation for the Bruce Stadium transactions. It is difficult to accept that it was merely a technical breach. There is no question that it was unlawful, but I believe we also have to be able to prove intent, and it is in this area that the evidence for the level of intent is light.

The Government has said it made a mistake, and I have sat here today waiting for a conclusive case otherwise. I have heard speculation and suggestions, but I am yet to hear or see conclusive proof. But that does not mean I am about to let the Government off the hook, Mr Speaker. I suggest that I have enough evidence to warrant imposing a censure on the Chief Minister here today, and I ask the Clerk to circulate an amendment to the motion seeking to achieve this. Mr Speaker, I do not see this as being the end of the case. As far as I am concerned, the case will still remain open, hanging over the Government's head, until the Auditor-General reports. (Extension of time granted)

Mr Speaker, with my limited resources, I have been trawling through the Bruce redevelopment papers over the last week. I have tried to plough through the paper trail, but in view of the time constraints have not been able to analyse with as much detail as I would have liked. The Auditor-General does have the resources and he will be analysing the same papers in his performance audit. As far as I am concerned, the jury is still out on the dealings on the Bruce Stadium redevelopment, but the Auditor-General will give us the complete picture of the Bruce redevelopment financial situation.

I know that Mr Stanhope and his supporters see the evidence on the table as an immediate cause for conviction, but my background and instincts tell me that intent has not been proven and I need more evidence before deciding whether to convict. While I do not think we can prove conclusive intent for the misappropriated funds today, I would be willing to support Mr Osborne in bringing back a no-confidence motion against the Chief Minister later in the year, pending the findings of the Auditor-General's report. As I said at the start of my address, in making this decision I have done what I believe is right. However, I would like to make it clear to the Government that this proposed censure is not the end of the road.

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