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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 5 Hansard (25 August) . . Page.. 1216 ..

MS CARNELL (continuing):

Yet Terry O'Donoghue Promotions was subsequently selected as the preferred joint venture partner on the stated basis that it was the only consortia to have finance in place through a financier merchant banker. This was incorrect as there was no record of any offer of financial backing being made. Terry O'Donoghue Promotions made it clear in correspondence that it was not a principal, and in its first submission it claimed it was representing a company called GGS of Japan. No information on the parties on whose behalf it was acting was recorded, and GGS of Japan was not referred to after the first stage. Terry O'Donoghue Promotions was not a registered company and was not a registered business name in the ACT. This was the company that those opposite chose as a joint venture partner. The name had previously been registered as a business name for the purpose of promoting golf tournaments. Its registration had actually lapsed prior to the time of assessment.

Cygnet Corporation was formed after Cabinet had approved a preliminary agreement with Terry O'Donoghue Promotions, yet the preliminary agreement was entered into by Cygnet Corporation. So, Mr Speaker, Cabinet decided to go ahead with a preliminary agreement with Terry O'Donoghue Promotions, an entity that was not a company, did not have a registered business name, met none of the criteria and had no financial backing.

Mr Berry: Mr Speaker, I take a point of order.

MS CARNELL: I would get up too.

Mr Berry: Mr Speaker, relevance.

MR SPEAKER: I do not uphold the point of order.

MS CARNELL: Mr Speaker, this is very relevant because we are comparing here two approaches to a proposed joint venture. Mr Stanhope spoke at length about that.

Mr Berry: Mr Speaker, this is about a motion of censure of the Chief Minister for misleading the house. It is not about a comparison between two joint ventures. The Chief Minister is perfectly entitled to argue the case that she did not mislead us, but she either has to do that or sit down. This is not a motion calling on a comparison between the two joint ventures.

MR SPEAKER: I do not uphold - - -

Mr Moore: It is a censure motion. She can respond how she likes.

Mr Berry: We know where you are coming from, Michael.

Mr Humphries: Mr Speaker, the issue that the Chief Minister is raising is the standard that the house is setting in passing a motion like this. She is making the point that if the house were to pass a motion like this, given the relatively innocuous matters that have occurred, we would argue from the government side in this matter that the standard being set is very different from the one which the Opposition applies to itself in moving this motion.

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