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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 7 Hansard (30 June) . . Page.. 1848 ..

MR HIRD (continuing):

Without the redevelopment we would have been at real risk of being one of the three teams cut. The current debate about the financing of the redevelopment could not hide the fact that the $32m, however raised, had been well spent. Bruce is now one of the best stadiums being used in the NRL.

Mr Wood: Who said that?

MR HIRD: Mr Kevin Neil, the chief executive. Currently nine grounds, or more than half of those being used this year around Australia, have failed to meet the NRL's criteria. It may not be known, Mr Speaker, but a prominent civil engineer in this city with a number of international sporting arena projects on his books is on record as saying that the new Bruce Stadium is probably the best medium-range stadium in the world. That, Mr Speaker, is some rap for the efforts of this Government. Without the Raiders and the Brumbies, this Government would have had to make some extremely difficult decisions about upgrading Bruce solely on the basis of securing the Olympic football tournament. The decision to redevelop the stadium, not only to host the Olympic Games football but also to ensure the longevity of the Raiders and Brumbies and the Cosmos, clearly was soundly based.

In 1996 the Raiders commissioned accountants Price Waterhouse to undertake a cost-benefit study to demonstrate the economic importance of the team to Canberra and its surrounding areas. The results of this study showed that the Raiders have given a significant boost to the local economy and made an important contribution to the ACT's social and sporting fabric. A specific conclusion included in the study was that there were substantial net contributions to the region of around $6m in 1995 and $19m in 1996. Mr Wood, I see that you are the only person from the Opposition who is in the chamber. So much for the importance of the motion that we are debating. Raiders activity added 166 and 231 full-time equivalent positions in 1995 and 1996 respectively. The Raiders presence also made a net contribution to ACT tax revenue of around $35,000 and $1.2m in 1995 and 1996 respectively. While the Brumbies have not commissioned a similar study, it would be fair to conclude that the team's presence in Canberra provides a similar level of benefit to the ACT economy and the local community.

Prior to the redevelopment, Bruce Stadium was essentially a sportsground, although outdoor concerts were held there in 1991 and 1994. The new redevelopment delivers the opportunity to position the stadium as a premier outdoor concert venue, allowing Canberra to be included on the circuit for major international acts at marginal additional cost to the overall tour. In addition, the nature and standard of the corporate facilities mean that the stadium can also now host a range of other business, entertainment and community functions in the years to come.

It is when you look at the value for money question that you realise how well this Government has achieved its aim of minimising the cost of the upgrade to taxpayers. Mr Speaker, Bruce is not the only stadium to have been upgraded in the last three years. Let me elaborate. In fact, that is one of the reasons why there was an overrun on the original cost estimates. Let me share with members some broad comparative costings between the redevelopment of Bruce Stadium and other similar facilities that have recently been constructed or refurbished.

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