Page 4419 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 19 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
As I indicated at the beginning of my remarks, Mr Speaker, if the government, whether this one or any subsequent government, ignores the implications of this Estimates Committee report, I think the institution of accountability by the Executive - responsible government, it is called - will have been seriously eroded. Many responsibilities, or burdens, have been placed on government. It was felt by the Estimates Committee that they were not honoured in this particular case. Information that ought to have been provided was not provided to the Estimates Committee. I sincerely hope, Mr Speaker, that this is the last time any Estimates Committee needs to make that criticism of any government in this Assembly.
DR KINLOCH (5.24): First of all, I want to endorse Mr Humphries' remarks, especially on the non-government schools. I will not now go on about that; I just want to underline it 15 times.
I would like to return to the question of Vikings and elephants. The Vikings were asked to replace a white elephant. They have simply not been able to do it because the whole process is non-commercial. It has been premised on a deal between mates in the terms outlined by Mr McIntyre. The deal leaves this Territory with a legacy of a 20-year contract with the Raiders, locking us into a $6.5m capital expenditure, consisting of $2.8m on upgrading the warm-up track for the Institute of Sport and $3.7m on the stadium itself. I must say that I remember with sadness that that whole stadium was once a wonderful athletics track.
That amount could be reduced by $1m if the Rugby League honours its agreement. Nevertheless, the real legacy is the long-term recurrent cost to our community for the league-dedicated stadium. It costs just under $1m a year to operate the stadium; that is, about $950,000, made up of $531,000 in operating costs and $419,000 in interest payments. After deducting payments from the Raiders of approximately $300,000, and applying about $30,000 other revenue, this leaves an operating shortfall per annum of some $620,000. This calculation ignores the fact that the money we spent converting the warm-up track was effectively a premium paid to the Australian Institute of Sport for vacating the main stadium.
I do remember with sadness, Mr Speaker, that that was once a wonderful track for the World Cup. In other words, it was part of the price we paid for the white elephant. Normal commercial procedures would suggest that on this basis we could assume a return on capital, and if it is 14 per cent it means that the stadium ought to be returning a further $392,000 per annum. On that basis - wait for it - the true loss is nearly $1m per annum. The Follett Government's advice on 23 May 1989 to the Assembly that "the relationship between the Canberra Raiders and the Bruce trust will be a commercial one" grossly misled the people of this Territory.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .