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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 3 Hansard (9 April) . . Page.. 781 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

by a process at arm's length from the Government. That organisation was selected to run the cafe, the nightclub. It began to do so about three weeks ago, as I said. I was informed yesterday that the operator has ceased to trade. I have asked for a full report on what the situation is and the extent to which the Government may have lost any money in that process.

Mr Whitecross: What happened to the money?

MR HUMPHRIES: I do not make any apologies for having tried to assist in alleviating the problems associated with under-age drinking in Civic and elsewhere in our city. I think it was a worthwhile exercise, a good project. I know that those opposite are very quick to laugh like hyenas when projects of this kind fall over. They apparently do not care that this was a worthwhile project which might have achieved its goals. If it had achieved its goals, you can be guaranteed that they would not have said anything. Now that it has fallen over, they are very happy to cry, "Look at the mistake you made".

Mr Wood: It was harebrained from the start.

MR HUMPHRIES: I hear Mr Wood say that it was harebrained. I did not appoint the Community Safety Committee originally. Indeed, I think the recommendation to have that cafe came forward from the committee while it was still under Mr Connolly's control. As far as I am aware, Mr Connolly had no problem with the recommendation. We picked it up, we acted on it and we implemented it, and it has turned out to have failed. I do not make any apologies to this place for having tried and failed, which is much better than having not tried at all.

MS REILLY: I ask a supplementary question. Attorney-General, can you inform the Assembly what safeguards you put into place to protect the money that was being put into this business to provide this service? Can you also inform the Assembly whether you were aware of the feasibility study that raised concerns about the viability of the project? Can we get a copy of that study?

MR HUMPHRIES: To answer Ms Reilly's question, there was an extensive process of examination of the tenders, I think they were, that were put forward to operate this venture. There was a decision at the end of the day about which party ought to be viewed as successful in that process. The decision ultimately was mine. As I recall, I took advice from my department on that question. I will come back to the house and correct it if I am wrong, but I believe that the decision I took was consistent with the advice I received from my department. Of course, they are the public servants that we have politicised! They are probably all agents of the Liberal Party, Mr Berry, so you cannot take their advice seriously, can you?

As a result of that, a contract was drawn up between the successful operator and the ACT Government. I think it was the ACT Government. There was also some Federal money in this venture. The ACT attempted to put in place a contract which protected its interests as best it could. I will have to find out whether in the circumstances that will do that. It is not true to suggest that the ACT is exposed to the tune of $60,000.

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