Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 7 Hansard (26 June) . . Page.. 2629 ..
MR HARGREAVES
(continuing):the taxpayers of this town and that would put the taxpayers of this town at a distinct disadvantage. He is saying that there is a distinct possibility of that.
I am prepared to accept the minister's word on that. I am seeing him as saying that if his judgment is not right on that issue, or if the judgment of anybody else within the executive or the government is not right on that issue, he is prepared to have somebody totally independent of the process adjudicate on that. I would like to know what is wrong with that.
I take Ms Tucker's point. In the interests of transparency, a document is available for members to look at. If you think that a case has not been made for protection of the ACT taxpayer in a potential damages case, if you think that that case has not been mounted, you can submit your case on that or your fears on that to an independent arbiter, who will look at the document and say that this advice does or does not put the ACT taxpayer at a disadvantage. If it does not, the document can be released.
It seems quite simple to me. In fact, this is a very good compromise. It actually shows that the minister is prepared to act in good faith. I am surprised that the opposition do not recognise that. I would urge them to reconsider their opposition to this amendment. If, in fact, members of the opposition have information to which we are not privy and which makes them suspect that the document does not put the ACT taxpayer at a legal disadvantage, perhaps they would care to share it with us, because we also seem to be at a bit of a disadvantage here.
If, in fact, they are just going on a gut feeling and do not trust the government on this issue, perhaps that lack of trust is being reciprocated. I for one am quite happy to have an independent arbiter look at that. Mrs Dunne is quite happy to quote House of Representatives Practice, which does not specifically refer to this type of issue, but the New South Wales upper house practice does. It is a tried and true practice in New South Wales and it works there.
Mr Smyth
: No, it's a motion from 2003.MR HARGREAVES
: I take the Leader of the Opposition's point. The issue, though, is one of having someone independent of the process. This is an offer to have an independent arbiter in the process. It is a good offer. It is an offer made in good faith. I would very seriously urge the opposition to reconsider their case.This is not the time for political point scoring. If you want to play politics after the event, fine, but right now you should consider very carefully what you do. If you get your hands on this document and it does turn out to be prejudicial to the case, you will be costing the taxpayer $X, or at least creating the potential for that. You will be-there is no may be-putting the taxpayer at a legal disadvantage.
Mrs Dunne
: No.MR HARGREAVES
: Mrs Dunne can shout no as much as she likes, but the simple fact is that when two people are having a commercial dispute and one of them knows the complete case of the other, the one who knows is at an advantage, end of story. The minister is not saying that he has closed up the shop. He is saying, "I'll submit this to an
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .