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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 7 Hansard (30 June) . . Page.. 1782 ..

MS CARNELL (continuing):

volume of information has been provided already to both the Auditor-General and members of this Assembly, proving beyond any doubt that this was an exhaustive and considered process.

Under the original plan, the $15m balance of the construction project was to be realised from a private sector loan of $7m and the remaining $8m was to come from revenue generated by the stadium for such things as naming rights and the sale of corporate suites. This plan was publicly disclosed on several occasions, both in this Assembly on 26 and 27 August 1997, not exactly yesterday, and in the Estimates Committee hearing on 20 July 1998, not to talk about all of the situations of disclosure over the last six months or so. There is also no doubt that the Government made its intentions clear in relation to funding the upgrade through a mixture of public and private sector financing.

Construction began in September 1997 and, as is well known, the capital works contribution of $12.3m from the Government was to be provided over three years. By December 1997, it was evident that the private sector involvement in Bruce Stadium financing would not occur in sufficient time for the construction to continue without the need for temporary working capital. Without this working capital, there would have needed to be a pause in construction. This would have had the effect of increasing the construction costs, due to delays and restarting, as well as jeopardising the timing for completion, which was critical to the stadium being fit to host rugby league and rugby union matches for the 1998 home and away series. Mr Speaker, any delay would have resulted in lost revenue and higher costs, not something, I would assume, that any government would accept.

Cabinet was advised in December 1997 that the appropriate approach was for project financing for the full redevelopment to be sourced from the Central Financing Unit pending finalisation of private sector funding before the end of June 1998. Cabinet accepted this advice. It should be noted at this stage that Mr Kaine was a member of the Cabinet who made this decision; in fact, at the time, he was Assistant Treasurer. The temporary working capital was provided in the form of a repayable loan to the Bruce Redevelopment Authority, which at the time was, in fact, a section within the Department of Business, the Arts, Sport and Tourism. The loan would be repaid once private sector funding had been obtained, and in any event by the end of the then current financial year.

The provision of temporary working capital in the form of a repayable loan was not an unusual practice, Mr Speaker. Similar loans have been provided under this Government and under previous governments to ACT Forests, the Australian International Hotel School, the Gungahlin Development Authority, CanDeliver and Totalcare. And guess what, Mr Speaker? These loans were not separately appropriated. A good example, Mr Speaker, is that the initial funding for the hotel school was agreed to on 23 December 1992, when those opposite were in power. Under the agreement, CIT borrowed $150,000 from ACTBIT, which was the precursor of the current Central Financing Unit, for establishment work. So, $150,000 was borrowed by CIT from ACTBIT for establishment work. That was not through any Appropriation Bill. It did not come anywhere near the Assembly. In these cases, the preference for a loan rather than a capital injection is based upon the need for appropriate commercial accountability

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