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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 7 Hansard (30 June) . . Page.. 1781 ..

MS CARNELL (continuing):

First, let us review the allegations made by the Labor Party. They say that we have acted illegally; they say that we have spent money that was not in an Appropriation Act, and they say that there was not full disclosure. To address these allegations, I would like, firstly, to explain to the Assembly exactly how the Bruce Stadium development came about and detail the decision-making process adopted by Cabinet and the Government that led to the construction being authorised. Secondly, I will detail the legal position regarding the various transactions that have been called into question. Thirdly, I will detail what steps the Government has taken to rectify the problem that has been identified within our financial management laws and to revise the way that Bruce Stadium is funded. Finally, I will review in detail the allegations and show why there is no basis for this motion to succeed.

What I intend to show is that the Government, be it any Minister or any public servant, did not set out to deliberately break any laws, even though a mistake did occur in the implementation of our decision in relation to Bruce Stadium. I will show that, despite Mr Stanhope's claim, there are clear provisions under which public money can be spent without resorting to a specific Appropriation Act. These provisions have been used not only by this Government, Mr Speaker, but also by the Labor Party when they have been in office and by every other government in this country. I will demonstrate that the Government fully disclosed all the transactions relating to the financing of Bruce Stadium. In summary, Mr Speaker, whilst the Government apologises for the error that occurred, it was not as a result of any deliberate act or wrongful intent, and therefore does not warrant my dismissal or the dismissal of the Government.

Mr Speaker, let us look, firstly, at the background to the project. In 1996 the Government agreed to redevelop Bruce Stadium to meet the standards required to host Olympic football and to ensure that we were able to retain the Canberra Raiders and the ACT Brumbies in Canberra. This decision was made only after assessing an enormous range of professional advice provided by a range of external consultants. Advice was sought first from CRI Project Management and from Graf Consulting International. Mr Speaker, we did not just accept that advice. To test the rigour of the advice of these two firms, their business assumptions were subsequently checked by two other independent firms, Andersen Consulting and IMG. Based upon this extensive advice, the Government decided that the project was capable of being funded through a contribution of $12.3m from the capital works program and the rest from private sector sources.

We chose to go down this path for one reason only, Mr Speaker, and that was to minimise the financial impact on the people of the Territory. It is true, Mr Speaker, that right from day one we could have put the lot into capital works. We chose, though, to go in a different direction and to get the best outcome for the least risk to the people of Canberra. The proposed financing structure was based upon independent and professional advice, and at all times the Government believed that it was acting totally within the law. This was no ad hoc decision-making process. Make no mistake, it was a major project about which decisions were reached only after lengthy processes for obtaining and testing information. In fact, those opposite will know that, Mr Speaker, from the boxes of information that we have provided to them over recent weeks. A huge

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