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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 5 Hansard (10 May) . . Page.. 1413 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

That is what we are talking about here-how public moneys are expended and how public assets like BOPL and Bruce Stadium are managed by the territory. The Chief Minister concedes:

The guidelines go on in embarrassing detail. Ms Tucker went through them to some extent. Because of the length of this debate, I will not go into them any further. They are sober reading for people who have listened today as the Chief Minister and each of her ministers have trashed the document, have discarded it, have thrown it away. It is now just a nonsense document. It means nothing.

This government's commitment to openness is a farce. It is some sort of wavering spirit. It does not exist. There is no commitment. That has been made abundantly clear today. I repeat the claim I made earlier. I cannot understand how any member in this place can say they do not want to know what the insurance policy says, that they do not want to know whether the ACT's payment of these moneys is covered by insurance. We are now getting the good old Bjelke-Petersen line: "Don't you worry about that. You trust me. Don't you worry about that. I've got it under control." I do not want to know whether you took out the insurance policy; I do not want to know whether you protected the ratepayers money; I do not want to know whether you administered the contract properly-I do not need to know! In other words, I do not really care all that much-it is all too hard!

There is absolutely no reason why a contract which was entered into on our behalf and which should be headed by our name cannot be released to us. It is our contract of insurance. They are our moneys. It is our contract. It is not somebody else's contract. The contract between ITC and BOPL is clear. It is our contract of insurance. It was taken out to protect us and our money, and it seems that that was not done.

If there is another document, I would be more than happy for the government to excise all those bits to do with Sydney, Adelaide, Melbourne and Brisbane. I only want the clauses of that contract that relate to BOPL and protect our moneys. Why can we not have that? Why can the government not give us that? Why can they not give us the reconciliation statement of costs against income, a straight balance sheet showing how much money was taken in and how much money was paid out. Why can we not have that?

What is it that we are hiding from here? What is the government seeking to protect? It is certainly not seeking to protect its commercial-in-confidence guidelines. It has trashed those. What are they hiding? What is the cover-up? What is the next embarrassing secret? What is the secret that we are not to be let into here? What is it that they are trying to cover up? What aspect of maladministration are we concerned with here-the fact that they did not take out the contract at all, the fact that we are not covered, the fact that Lloyd's of London is going to get a terrible shock one of these days as they deal with the claim for $750,000 under a straight indemnity agreement? It would be interesting to know how Lloyd's of London will deal with this.

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