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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 4 Hansard (28 March) . . Page.. 1053 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

companies is not the subject of much interest. But what I am trying to draw attention to is the perception.

As I said, a common test of conflict of interest is the perception of the ordinary man in the street. We have two families involved in several companies and involved in the transfer of CTEC to the airport. We have one family involved in the Capital Airports Group and Brindabella Park by a range of connections. We have another family involved in the board of CTEC and the board of the Capital Airport Group, all respected businessmen around the ACT. Another business interest of the family members has moved to the Canberra Airport.

So we have one family involved in one government instrumentality and in the Capital Airport Group. That same family is involved in another company, which has moved its business to Brindabella Park, and one arm of that family is involved in CTEC, which has moved to Brindabella Park as well. And they claim that there could be no perception of conflict of interest.

I have listened to Kerrie Tucker and I have listened to the minister. I saw Mr Service's letter in the paper. I know that I have been invited to Brindabella Park to see the new establishment of Mr Service, JG Service and Company, out at Brindabella Park. That was not mentioned in the letter. That is not a criticism; it should not be seen as a criticism of Mr Service. I have raised this matter merely to paint a picture from which the ordinary person in the street could easily draw the conclusion that there is conflict of interest. That is the test and I think the test is satisfied. If the ordinary person in the street could draw the conclusion that there is a conflict of interest then I think that satisfies the test. Mr Humphries, as Attorney-General, knows that I am on the ball there.

Mr Humphries: I am not Attorney-General, I am sorry.

MR BERRY: Well, the past Attorney-General. The new Attorney-General would know about that test as well. It is an issue of perception. Those opposite can deny it all they like but it is an issue of perception.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I think we have a real problem if the minister allows a government instrumentality to be involved in something where it is fair to conclude that there is a conflict if interest on the basis of the connections. It is a problem for the ordinary taxpayer out there who, I think, could come to the reasonable conclusion that there is a conflict of interest, notwithstanding anything that has been said in their defence.

I repeat that I make no comment about the legality or otherwise of what people have done. I am talking about perceptions. I am disappointed it has come to this because I think the reputations of some people may well be smeared as a result of this debate. But there were plenty of opportunities to resolve this before we got to this point. The opportunity has not been taken and we, as members of this Legislative Assembly, are entitled to draw conclusions about the behaviour of our executive arm of government and the interactions with the private sector. So, Mr Deputy Speaker, I think the case has been made on that score.

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