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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 2 Hansard (21 May) . . Page.. 479 ..

MS CARNELL (continuing):

the management arrangements and the sorts of options that exist for those are another issue again, Mr Quinlan. The ACT Government presently manages the Bruce Stadium and subsidises operations, I think, to the tune of approximately $150,000 a year. The revenue and expenditure assumptions for the redevelopment of the stadium are contained, as members would be aware, in a business plan that has been prepared by an independent consultant.

The plan recommends a number of different approaches - and members of the previous Government and Mr Whitecross were briefed on the way that this works - which would ensure the success of the redeveloped stadium. To operate successfully, stadium management operations must have a high level of commercial skills and marketing expertise. These skills are not always found in the public sector. From that perspective, a number of proposals were put forward. One model was to establish a Bruce Stadium trust. The trust could then engage a private sector stadium operator. The trust would be likely to include public sector and private sector representatives. Among the ideas that were put forward was the potential for some of the codes that were actually using the stadium to provide representatives. A working group has been established, comprising ACT Government representatives, financial institutions and an independent financial adviser, to look at all of these options. Obviously, Mr Speaker, as I said in the first part of the answer, the ACT will be looking at maintaining the ownership or long-term lease of the stadium; but it needs to be managed in such a way that we maximise the financial return from the stadium, as a significant amount of money is tied up in it.

MR RUGENDYKE: My question is to the Minister for Justice and Community Safety, Mr Humphries. Minister, I draw your attention to the great service that the Handyhelp home and community care program provides to the most vulnerable in our community. As you will know, in order to meet its work commitments, Handyhelp has traditionally relied heavily on the community service gangwork program. Can the Minister explain why the gangwork program was discontinued on 8 April this year?

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Rugendyke for that question. Yes, I can explain what has happened in this area. A couple of changes have been occurring in the area of corrections generally. Obviously, this is quite apart from the major corrections direction which we as a government have set to establish our own corrections institution here in the ACT, that is, a prison. Those other changes relate principally to an increased throughput in the courts; that is, more matters are coming before the courts and larger numbers of correctional orders are being made as a result, whether they are orders for custodial or non-custodial sentences. One of the significant changes in this area has been an increase in the number of periodic detention orders made pursuant to the establishment of that new service. Mr Speaker, what that has led to is that today there are probably fewer people on community service orders than there were in the past. That has meant that we have had to reconsider the way in which the CSO scheme has operated.

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