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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 5 Hansard (10 May) . . Page.. 1397 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

I could not have put it better than the Canberra Times has done in its editorial. The government should take heed of that sort of comment, because they have laid themselves open to suspicion. Every time this place asks for information, almost without exception over recent years, the argument has been: "It is commercial-in-confidence and we cannot tell you about it." As a generality, I do not believe that assertion is true.

In this case there seems to be some suggestion on the part of the government that the information is the property of ITC. I cannot see how Bruce Operations' budget for the event can be in any way privy to an outside organisation. That is what Mr Stanhope is asking for in paragraph (i) of his motion. Nor can I see how a reconciliation statement of the revenue and expenses specified in clause 4.7 of the contract between Bruce Operations and the International Touring Co can be held to be privy to one party to the contract. That is information that is crucial to Bruce Operations Pty Ltd, a government instrumentality. I do not see how the government can argue that either of those two things ought to be withheld from this place on the grounds that they are commercial-in-confidence or that that information that ought to be privy to this external organisation with which we are doing business.

The only contentious point is perhaps paragraph (iii), which refers to insurance policies and/or papers relating to those policies covering the event at Bruce Stadium. Mr Stanhope's motion refers to clauses 2(i), 2(j), and 2(k) of the contract between Bruce Operations and ITC. Those clauses are quite specific. I will read them. Clause 2(i), under the heading "Obligations of ITC", states:

It is not in the name of ITC. This insurance policy was to be in the joint names of the parties, that is, Bruce Operations and ITC. How then, after the event, that contract having been signed, can the Chief Minister and the Deputy Chief Minister get up in this place and say, "But these insurance policies are privy only to ITC." They have said, "We have no interest in these policies." Mr Speaker, that is not true. We do have an interest. The insurance was to be in the joint names of the parties. That means that the ACT government, through BOPL, has just as much interest in that insurance policy as does ITC.

The agreement in the joint names of the parties was also to cover the expenses and loss of profits from cancellation of the event arising from any cause whatsoever, including whether. This joint policy was to protect both parties from cancellation for any purpose. The Chief Minister and the Deputy Chief Minister seem to be implying that they did not want to tell us about it because it was cancelled due to the non-appearance of certain performers. That might have been one of the reasons why there would be a loss of profits, but only one of them. Notwithstanding the cause of the cancellation, the policy covers the ACT government.

Clause 2(k) of the contract states that ITC is obliged "to provide on demand to BOPL copies of", among other things, "any policies of insurance undertaken in accordance with this Agreement". The agreement between us and ITC, first of all, says that the insurance

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