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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 5 Hansard (10 May) . . Page.. 1352 ..

MS CARNELL (continuing):

The claim is currently being negotiated with what is obviously a very large insurance company, and obviously it is a very big policy in that it covered the whole tour of Australia. Why would not putting a claim on the table now in this place and having it debated do anything but undermine the capacity of the ITC and BOPL to do a reasonable deal on our behalf? What possible benefit could there be? How detrimental could it be for us to debate, as we inevitably would if it was put on the table, the insurance claim before it has been assessed, or while it was being assessed? I ask everyone, even Mr Kaine who seems to be very positive about this approach, to have a think about how that could be detrimental to our interests and to the public interest.

Is this not all about ensuring that information that is in the public interest is released? It that not what we are here for? I am not speaking about information that could be politically useful to the opposition or information just for the sake of information. I am speaking about information that is in the public interest.

I ask members to remember that we have already put on the table the whole contract, the budget without naming individuals, the correspondence between Tony Blunn and ITC, and all of the correspondence around those issues. We have put on the table the budget, the number of tickets sold, the amount of revenue, the average price of tickets, the break-even point, the whole contract, and, again, the budget without the details of individuals. How much more could possibly be in the public interest? The information required here is not just not in the public interest. Putting an insurance claim on the table to be debated while it is being assessed by people lots bigger and tougher than us, I can promise, has no benefit at all. In fact, it would inevitably be detrimental. This is Mr Stanhope playing politics in its worst form.

If we allow this to continue as an Assembly, forget Bruce Stadium or anything else. All that can happen is a negative scenario for the people whom we represent. All I ask is for everybody to have a think about that. Have a think about where the line is here. Tomorrow are we going to ask our contractors for their contracts or their relationships with their banks?

Mr Stanhope: We already do.

MS CARNELL: Actually, we do not.

Mr Humphries: Not on the public table.

MR SPEAKER: Order!

MS CARNELL: Not on the public record. By the way, we know about all of the information that you have got here, just like we do with regard to our contractors. But we do not put it on the table in the Assembly, and that is the difference. That is what you are requiring here. This is an enormous step over the line. I ask again members to think about it seriously; to think about whether there is any public benefit.

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