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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 02 Hansard (Wednesday, 3 March 2004) . . Page.. 680 ..

strike me that the commercial in-confidence test can be applied in this case. I do not believe that the commercial in-confidence provisions are applicable at this time.

There might be compelling obligations to another government, but no other government is involved. There might be implications for legal action, but we should not have got into a situation in which we bound ourselves up with legal obligations so as to expose ourselves to that sort of action. Perhaps there are security considerations, but I am not sure that is applicable. Perhaps there are genuine issues of privacy or commercial trade secrets and we have on-sold the lease on a deposit. I am not sure that there are either privacy or commercial trade secrets tied up in that. All of those were reasons set out by Labor in opposition as to guiding the determination of when information needed to be protected. I do not believe that a case can be made that those clauses or conditions need to be met now.

I am now aware of any other reasons for applying commercial-in-confidence in this case, certainly not so long after the event. So you have to continue to ask about the nature and the outcome of the sale. What was the price? Were any other considerations involved? What were the implications for Totalcare of what happened to the various assets of the business and how they were sold? What was the treatment of the former staff? What was the treatment of the landowners? What are the rights of the landowners in this regard? They have told me that they have not even seen the new contract. They do not know the sale price and they do not know the terms and conditions of the contract.

You have to question what other interests there were in buying Totalcare’s share of the joint venture. How many offers were made? What responses were made to these offers? Indeed, did the public get the best value they could for the sale of the quarry? You also have to question the interest in buying the business and the assets of the joint venture. Why change from the sale of Totalcare’s share to the total sale of the whole business? How many offers were made? What responses were made to these offers?

After the sale which came into effect on 1 July 2002, with the sale taking place on 12 July 2002, there is the need to understand any continued involvement of Totalcare in the quarry or ancillary activities. Has there been or is there any such involvement? If so, why and are there any liabilities, contingent or otherwise, that do remain? Again, those questions remain unanswered.

You have then got more general questions about the sale process. What has been the role of the landowners in the sale process? Were they involved? Did they need to be involved? Did they have a right to be involved? Were they treated fairly? Are they satisfied with the outcome? What is their continuing role?

You could say that there are questions as to the role of the Treasurer and the shareholders. Was the Treasurer involved throughout the process? There was a note about briefing him on 19 March. Was he only involved near or at the conclusion of the process? What was the role of cabinet? Did the sale go through the cabinet process? What decisions did cabinet make about the process?

In conclusion, what did the current Chief Minister promise in March 2001? He said that there would be no trading off of our position in secret deals, no hiding behind the cloak of confidentiality. Against those tests, this government clearly has failed. When dealing

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