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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 5 Hansard (5 May) . . Page.. 1331 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

Initially the redevelopment was to cost $27m, with some $15m coming from the private sector and with a guarantee from the Chief Minister that the Territory's exposure would not exceed, in any event, more than $12.3m. The cost has now risen to an agreed $32m, and there is no sign of the private sector funding. This is the capital cost of the venture. On top of that we have to meet operating and financing costs, but now serious doubts have been raised about the projections for the operating revenue. There is no doubt that we do have a wonderful facility at Bruce. I enjoy visiting the facility and I enjoy watching football there. But at what cost?

Now we have the fundamental questions about the project. Who has paid for the expenditure and on what authority? There is a complicated background to the issue, and it becomes more complex and more confused. On 1 June 1998 the Government created the Bruce Property Trust as a vehicle for the private sector to take equity in the redeveloped Bruce Stadium. On 15 April the Government created Bruce Operations Pty Ltd to manage the stadium.

Another factor in this confused web, this confused chain, is that the Appropriation Act in 1997-98 provided $5.6m as a capital injection for the project. But $14.7m was spent on the project, and the difference was covered by a loan of $9.7m from the Commonwealth Bank. The Auditor-General noted that, to 30 June 1998, $17.4m had been expended, with a further $10m committed. The loan was taken out on 30 June 1998 and refinanced with internal ACT government finance on 1 July 1998. It is interesting that the Appropriation Act 1998-99 provided a further capital injection of $6.7m for the project. The project is close to completion, and no private sector financing has been arranged.

Ms Carnell: What about the loan from the Commonwealth Bank?

MR STANHOPE: The Chief Minister interjects that the loan from the Commonwealth Bank is private sector financing. The details of that have not been declared to the Assembly. I am interested in the Chief Minister's interjection that the Commonwealth Bank finance that has been announced but the details of which have not been disclosed fits the description of private sector financing. We await with great interest the revelations of how a loan from the Commonwealth Bank, brokered apparently by the Deutsche Bank, fits the definition of private sector financing. But, with luck, the Chief Minister in her response in this debate will reveal to us exactly how that is achieved.

The point is that expenditure of some $14m to $20m, or indeed $27m to $32m probably, has been made or permitted and none of it, other than the amounts of $5.6m and last year's amount, have been appropriated. This question of whether or not funds have been expended on the Bruce Stadium without any formal appropriation by the Assembly, by the parliament, goes to the very heart of our parliamentary system. Parliament is responsible to the people, and the Executive is responsible to the parliament. No payment of public moneys should be made without the Assembly's approval. This Assembly has appropriated $12.5m, yet payments of $27m to $32m have been made by this Government.

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