Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 5 Hansard (10 May) . . Page.. 1404 ..
MR SMYTH (continuing):
trend across the rest of the country, or increased retail growth. These are the economic achievements of this government under the Chief Minister, and we have worked very hard for them.
We do not get acknowledgment from the Labor Party, although today Mr Quinlan twice acknowledged the achievements of the government, which shows real leadership. All we get is the same cant from Mr Berry that the electorate did not believe before the last election and do not believe now.
Mr Quinlan said the onus was on the government to prove why the documents should not be released. That onus has been very clearly fulfilled, and the position has been stated very simply. The documents are not ours to release. The contract is between ITC, a private business, and their insurer. The government has already released the Bruce Stadium's insurance details to Mr Stanhope. They are right there. They are in black and white. They are in the contract. That is a legally binding contract that states very clearly in clause 2, "Obligations of ITC":
(i) Upon the signing of this agreement to immediately effect the following insurance in joint names of the parties:
(i) Public liability to an amount of $10 million per claim; and
(ii) expenses and loss of profit from cancellation of the Event arising from any cause whatsoever including weather; and
(iii) infringement of the third party intellectual rights;
(iv) effect any other insurance as the parties may reasonably agree on;
The contract between Bruce Stadium and the ITC is a binding document. It is signed and agreed to by both parties, and it clearly states the requirements for the insurance contracts that ITC must take out. If ITC fail to take out those insurance contracts, the onus remains on them, and Bruce Stadium could seek a remedy based on that contract. That is quite clearly Bruce Stadium's insurance policy with ITC.
What Mr Stanhope is asking for is a copy of an insurance policy that is between two parties other than Bruce Stadium. Mr Kaine said in his speech-and this is the document that he was referring to-that our signature is on that contract and that we are a beneficiary of that contract and therefore we should release the document. It is not true. Our signature is not on ITC's contract with its insurers. It is not ours. We may be a beneficiary, but our signature is not on that contract.
Mr Kaine: I did not say that it was.
MR SMYTH: Mr Kaine tells me that that is not what he said, and I accept that I have misunderstood what he said. The point is still the same: it is not our contract. Our signature is not on it.
Let us take it one step further. Insurance companies often take out insurance on their own policies to protect themselves, and sometimes, if they insure a party for a large amount or write a number of insurances that could amount to large damage claims, they offset some
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .