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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 5 Hansard (10 May) . . Page.. 1347 ..

MR SPEAKER: I would ask Mr Berry to be quiet. He will have a chance to participate in this debate. Mr Stanhope was heard in relative silence. Please extend the same courtesy.

Mr Berry: Well, if she wants me to respond, I am happy to do so.

MS CARNELL: He has interjected more in the first few minutes of my speech than I did in the whole of Mr Stanhope's speech.

Mr Speaker, I will come back to the point I was making. What the Assembly has to do-and we did this in opposition-is make a decision, make a call, on whether requiring information actually does add or does contribute to the public good. I hope every member has a look at the document that I just released to determine whether any of that information adds one jot to the public good. I suggest to you it does not. What it does give is the bottom line-the total expenses for the concert, which is information that has already been provided. But Mr Stanhope has been bellyaching about not knowing how much money was spent on electricity and airline fares, which strikes me as extraordinarily unnecessary.

Mr Stanhope has requested under the Freedom of Information Act that the Department of Treasury and Infrastructure release any documents held in this matter. He went through this in his speech. What did the department do? The department responded, saying no such documents were in their custody. They did not just say that. They said they were aware that BOPL, Bruce Operations Pty Ltd, had such information and that Mr Stanhope should request the information from them. So Mr Stanhope was not messed around, as he indicated. He made the request to the department and the department said, "No, go to BOPL because they are the responsible organisation."

The letter also recognised that BOPL was soon to release the contract previously requested by Mr Berry in this place. It made it clear to Mr Stanhope that the contract was about to be released. Bruce Operations Pty Ltd did not take out the insurance policy. I ask those members who have not read the contract-and I accept that it is quite a large document-to please do so because what it indicates quite clearly is that it was the responsibility of the International Touring Co to take out the insurance policy. So the policy is between the International Touring Co, as required in the contract with us, and the insurer, not with us at all. The contract with us, the contract that has been released, makes it clear that the International Touring Co is required to take out that policy. If they did not, we could sue them because it is in the contract that they must.

Mr Stanhope: Are you going to sue them?

MS CARNELL: No, they did. They did take out an insurance policy, which has been sighted as is-

Mr Berry: How did you know that? Why did you not hand it over under the freedom of information?

MS CARNELL: Mr Speaker.

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