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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 5 Hansard (10 May) . . Page.. 1409 ..

MS CARNELL (continuing):

were an insurance broker entering into a fairly large arrangement. Remember that this is for the whole tour right around Australia. I am sure you can see why ITC have a problem with releasing information about their business and information-

Mr Stanhope: We want the stuff about our business. What about our business?

MS CARNELL: There is nothing to do with our business involved.

Mr Stanhope: There is. The contract says it is has to be in our name.

MS CARNELL: No, it does not say that.

Mr Stanhope: It has to be in joint names, the contract says.

MS CARNELL: That is true. It does not say it had to be in our name, Mr Stanhope. How the contract is put together is important. It is not just with BOPL. The contract names all of the investors and all of the venues, as you would expect it to. One of the venues is Bruce Stadium and one of the investors is BOPL, along with a large number of other investors and venues. That is the situation. It is not in joint names as you have tried to put it. BOPL is one of the investors and Bruce Stadium is one of the venues. There is not a separate contract between BOPL and ITC. There is a contract or an arrangement that has all of the venues and all of the investors named, but the contract is very definitely, as the contract makes clear, between ITC and the insurance broker.

The entities that fall under that are not either parties to the contract or signatories to the contract. They are named in the contract as beneficiaries, I suppose, if there is a claim. There is a very large difference between being a party and it being our contract.

Mr Stanhope: So they are in breach of the contract.

MS CARNELL: Jon, you know better than that.

Mr Stanhope: I do not.

MS CARNELL: If you do not, I will tell you again.

Mr Stanhope: You tell me but you will never convince me. They are in breach of the contract if it does not comply with 1(l) and you know it.

MS CARNELL: They are not in breach of the contract. The way that it was being put in this Assembly is that somehow we were a party to the contract.

Mr Stanhope: That is what your contract says.

MS CARNELL: It does not say we are a party to it. Where does it say that?

Mr Stanhope: It says that the contract will be taken out in joint names.

MR SPEAKER: Order, please! We are not going to have a debate across the chamber.

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