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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 7 Hansard (30 June) . . Page.. 1814 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

The simple truth is there are a number of precedents for financial transactions which have occurred and which later were found to have been illegal. The Chief Minister has already spoken about the collection of excises, and the High Court in relation to Ha and Lim that found billions of dollars of revenue were collected illegally by all the States and Territories. These were illegal transactions and all governments were engaged in them. But, Mr Speaker, where are the political carcases? Where is the string of no-confidence motions that should have run across every State and the Commonwealth? Why is there not a group of ex-Premiers and Chief Ministers calling themselves "the victims of '97"?

The same applies, Mr Speaker, to the High Court decision in Capital Duplicators. In this case the High Court ruled that an ACT tax was illegal. The Territory had been collecting taxes for more than two years which the Constitution did not allow it to collect. Where is the Treasurer and the Chief Minister responsible for this decision now? Were they hounded from office in disgrace? Did they suffer a no-confidence motion at the hands of the Assembly? No, of course they did not, Mr Speaker, because there was no intention to act against the law.

Mr Speaker, I will quote another case and it is the case of ACT Forests. It happened in 1993, oddly enough under a Labor government. In 1993 the then Treasurer Rosemary Follett authorised a loan to ACT Forests that had not been specifically appropriated. This situation is surprisingly similar to the Bruce transaction, except in one unfortunate aspect. To start with, both of the transactions were provided for by legislation under the investment powers conferred on the respective Treasurers. Both transactions were for capital improvements. Neither was specifically dealt with by a line in an annual Appropriation Bill. Both involved loans from the Central Financing Unit of the government of the day. Both were the result of Cabinet decisions, with terms and conditions determined by the Under Treasurer, and both were in accordance with the standard government and ACT Treasury practice at the time. The key difference is that the Forests transaction was legal under the Audit Act, and the Bruce transaction was illegal and not consistent with the Audit Act's successor, the Financial Management Act. (Further extension of time granted)

Another case that is relevant is that of a payment made by the Office of Sport and Recreation in 1992 to the New South Wales Office of Racing. The payment of over $14,000 was made for a study set up out of the racecourse development fund and was made despite legal advice that it was outside the scope of the relevant Act. This happened in May 1992, Mr Speaker. In fact, the Office of Sport and Recreation had actually obtained legal advice which specifically confirmed that the administrative costs could not be paid from the RDF.

The Auditor-General found a serious lack of accounting and internal control procedures, and that there had been a number of serious breaches of the provisions of the Act, including contravention of that Government's own legal advice. Indeed, Mr Speaker, one case was even referred to the then Investigations Unit of the Chief Minister's Department. Most interestingly, Mr Speaker, the Minister of the day who should have taken responsibility for this act never did. Was there a no-confidence motion against him? No, there was not. Was there a censure motion against him? No, there was not. Did Mr Berry get away with it? Yes, he did, Mr Speaker. That is the difference between what has happened here with Bruce Stadium and what happened then with the RDF.

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