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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 5 Hansard (10 May) . . Page.. 1343 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

I am interested in this because, as the organiser of the Belconnen community fun run, we have agonised for years over how to cover the event for loss of profit, and all we could ever come up with was rain insurance. We could never get any sort of policy other than rain insurance.

Mr Berry: You still make us run in the rain, though.

MR STANHOPE: That is right. We could never afford to take out the rain insurance, so basically we had to risk it. There are a whole range of issues in relation to that. But the bottom line is that it is a matter of public interest. I cannot think of a reason why our government would refuse to provide to the parliament a copy of an insurance policy.

Ms Carnell: It is not with us.

MR STANHOPE: If you look at the contract you will find that it is ours; it is a joint arrangement. The simple fact is that ITC were required to take the policy. You cannot say it is not our policy; it is our policy. It was a policy which was jointly arranged under the terms of the contract that would be taken out to protect both ITC and BOPL-that is, the ACT people. It is our policy and there is no reason for us not to see it.

The contract between BOPL and ITC clearly also sets out the procedures to be followed in relation to financial operations. For example, it states that one trust account for the receipt of revenue and payment of accounts is to be established. The Chief Minister did indicate on ABC Radio that two accounts were established. I do not quite know what the Chief Minister is referring to there but, once again, it is a statement by the Chief Minister on the public record which is at odds with the contract, and perhaps it would be good if we could throw some light on that.

It also appears from a reading of the contract that, although payments from the trust account must be authorised by both parties-and these are the terms of the contract-"BOPL will pay any expense in relation to the Event if that expense is substantiated by an invoice or other documentation acceptable to BOPL." The contract also requires ITC to:

But on 26 April, Mr McManus, the head of ITC, told ABC Radio that in fact he had met payments to a number of contractors out of his own pocket to the tune of $250,000. He said he had paid for, among other things, staging, production and seat construction. One wonders what was the basis on which Mr McManus made those payments, particularly when one looks at the terms of the contract, namely, that BOPL will pay any expense in relation to the event if that expense is substantiated by an invoice or other documentation.

So, this begs an interesting question. Why, if the contract required BOPL to meet the expenses, did Mr McManus make all the payments? There has been no satisfactory explanation of the apparent inconsistency between the statements of the Chief Minister and Mr McManus as to the contractual requirements. It does raise a question as to what operational procedures were put in place to ensure that the parties to the contract kept

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