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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 7 Hansard (30 June) . . Page.. 1879 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

Further, it is likely that a court will decide that the retrospective operation of the guidelines was made for an improper purpose. The retrospective guideline is thus unlawful.

The Government relies, interestingly, on the advice of Parliamentary Counsel. Mr Speaker, with great respect, the Parliamentary Counsel is a legislative draftsman. He is not senior counsel briefed to provide legal advice. He is not actually a legal adviser. Incidentally, one wonders why the advice on this issue was provided by the Parliamentary Counsel and not the ACT Solicitor. In any case, the section 38 defence, the investment defence, is irrelevant. As the issue developed, the Chief Minister dashed from one defence to another. The investment defence was the last rat hole, and it is as worthless as the others. I have no doubt that the Auditor-General will find that in his report. Mr Speaker, there is no investment defence.

One other interesting claim made today was the "we fixed it at once" defence. The Chief Minister claimed again today that the Government acted to fix the problem with its funding of the stadium redevelopment as soon as it had become aware a problem existed. Mr Speaker, that is ludicrous rubbish. The Auditor-General rang the alarm bells in October last year when he wrote to the ACT Solicitor seeking a legal opinion. The Government's only response to that request last October was to undercut the Auditor by, firstly, seeking a similar opinion on behalf of the Chief Minister's Department and, secondly, never providing the legal advice. The issue of whether the Government had acted legally in this matter was brought to the Government's attention by the Auditor on 22 October last year. It was not until 28 April this year, and only after the Canberra Times Assembly reporter had revealed the possibility that money may have been spent without authorisation - a revelation, incidentally, for which that reporter was outrageously upbraided by the Chief Minister and shamefully abandoned by her editor - that the Government engaged Mr Tracey. Mr Speaker, the Government took seven months to act. If the Government had reacted privately in any way to the problems it encountered in funding the stadium redevelopment, that is, in running out of appropriated money, the only private response of the Government to that revelation was to concoct a scheme that saw it break the law. (Extension of time granted)

Put simply, the Government's defence today boils down to an admission, and the admission is: "Yes, we did it, but it wasn't really significant. Well, maybe we didn't do it. It was actually some faceless public servants, really. But there was never any intention to break the law. We never intended to break the law. Anyway, we didn't even know that we were breaking the law". Mr Speaker, this Government has spent or committed $31m of taxpayers' money without the authorisation of this parliament, an authorisation it is legally bound to acquire. We are up to $31m now with the revelation in today's Canberra Times that the sum expended on this development is now $44m. This Government has expended $31m of taxpayers' money without the approval of those taxpayers through their elected representatives. That is hardly insignificant. Of course, if you add the $8m that the Government announced yesterday it would commit to the redevelopment of Manuka Oval to compensate for Bruce Stadium being reconfigured as a rectangle, the total is now approaching more than $50m that the Government will spend on two football grounds.

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