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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 5 Hansard (10 May) . . Page.. 1410 ..

MS CARNELL: Sorry, it names Bruce Stadium. That is not a party to it. The contract names all of the investors and all of the venue hirers.

Mr Berry: You are desperate to cover this up, aren't you?

MS CARNELL: No. It is just that I cannot release-

MR SPEAKER: Order, please! It is getting very late. We will have to adjourn for dinner very shortly.

MS CARNELL: Mr Speaker, the problem is I cannot release a contract that we are not a signatory to. It is that simple. I have explained the issues. Paragraph (ii) and paragraph (iv) relate to the same information. I have explained why ITC do not want the contract released, and we have already released the information referred to in paragraph (i).

MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (5.34): That is an appalling admission by the government. The Chief Minister has just admitted that BOPL did not pursue its obligations as the administrators of this contract between itself and ITC. There is a clear obligation imposed on ITC. Mr Kaine read it out clearly. It is quite clear; it is succinct; it is unambiguous. ITC and Bruce Operations entered into a legally binding contract. Upon the signing of the contract, ITC undertook, as one of its obligations under the contract, immediately after 21 October 1999 to enter into a contract of insurance. ITC undertook to enter into another contract, a contract of insurance in the joint names of ITC and BOPL. That is a clear and unambiguous legal requirement. ITC undertook, as part of the obligations that it accepted under its contract with BOPL, to enter into another contract-a contract of insurance, not an indemnity.

What the Chief Minister has been describing is a straight indemnity arrangement. It is not an insurance arrangement. There is no contract of insurance underwriting the ACT's risk to the exposure that it faces as a result of advancing $109,000 on that day to a trustee located in Surfers Paradise. That is what we did. That is what we are talking about here. The day after this contract was signed, ITC was to enter into another contract, a contract of insurance.

The Chief Minister now tells us that they did not do it; that they have some other underwriting. The Chief Minister has circulated a cute map, Cayman Islands mark 2, explaining the indemnity arrangements. This is not an insurance contract; this is an indemnity arrangement, an underwriting arrangement by ITC with some foreign-based underwriters.

How is the ACT's investment protected? What is the ACT government's investment? What was our exposure? Under the contract we paid $109,000 to a trustee located in Surfers Paradise. Under the agreement, we undertook a range of other responsibilities. We undertook to secure the event for the venue. We undertook to make the venue available. We undertook to arrange ticketing. We undertook to arrange food. We undertook to arrange the security services. We undertook to arrange the ushering services. We undertook to arrange the cleaning of the venue. That is what we undertook to do.

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