Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 4 Hansard (21 April) . . Page.. 1064 ..
MS CARNELL (continuing):
a representative of the Raiders and, I think, of the Brumbies and, of course, the ACT Government. NVM were the successful tenderers and won the rights to market the stadium. The operating budget, I understand, is $1,795,820 for the direct costs of the marketing and advertising program, of which, Mr Kaine rightly says, $774,000 has been paid. I cannot tell Mr Kaine off the top of my head what the break-up of that money is at this stage, but I am happy to take it on notice.
MR KAINE: Thank you, Chief Minister, and I know that you will come back with the answer. In answer to an earlier question from Mr Quinlan you said that it was on a commission only basis and, no commission, no payment. Your reply now indicates that an amount of $774,000 has been paid up front and that no commission has yet been paid. Would you not agree that when you answered that question from Mr Quinlan some months ago you actually misled the Assembly?
MS CARNELL: No, not at all. Mr Speaker, there is an absolute fundamental difference between marketing and advertising and sales and there are actually two separate budget approaches. The $1.795m is for marketing and advertising. On top of that, the actual sales attract a commission on completed sales. As Mr Kaine rightly says, at least at my last advice, no commission had yet been paid on completion of sales, although I understood that some commission was due to be paid quite shortly on receipt of completed sales information. So that stands. There is no payment up front for sales as such; it is done on commission. Members would, I am sure, have seen advertising on television. We have seen direct marketing - not just in the ACT but right round Australia. That has been paid for or would need to be paid for. So far, $774,000 has been paid of the $1.795m which was part of the contract which, again, went out to tender and was subject to a full tender process, including the Raiders and the Brumbies.
MR CORBELL: Mr Speaker, my question is to the Minister for Health and Community Care. Can the Minister confirm that the value of public pathology work at Calvary Hospital, currently up for tender, is approximately $1.2m and that this amount represents about 10 per cent of the total work undertaken by the public provider, ACT Pathology? Is it the case that private pathology firms operating in Canberra do not have the capabilities to undertake locally the range of work required by Calvary Hospital?
MR MOORE: I have been informed by Calvary Hospital that they did decide to put out to tender their pathology services to assess whether they could deliver their pathology services at a price cheaper than they currently handle. My understanding is that the tender process is being done at arm's length - certainly it is at arm's length from me. As I understand it, the Canberra Hospital pathology service is one of the tenderers for that service. As to details of the money involved, the figure you are looking at of just over $1m is in the right order, from my recollection.
When a tender like that is put out the private pathology laboratories do not, as I understand it, rely just on the services they have in Canberra at the moment but would look at putting in a tender to see how they would provide those services. There are also
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .