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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 7 Hansard (30 June) . . Page.. 1880 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

Mr Speaker, if the Chief Minister had come to this place in 1996 and asked the people here whether they agreed to the Government spending $50m to upgrade two football grounds, would this Assembly have said, "Yes, Chief Minister. What a great idea. Spend $50m of taxpayers' money on two football grounds."? I am not sure that we would have had agreement from the Assembly to do that. That, of course, is the issue, is it not, that the Government holds the Assembly in contempt? That contempt is revealed in the Chief Minister's assertions earlier today that the Government had been open and transparent in all its dealings over the redevelopment - that everything has been disclosed. Members of this place know that that is not true. Mr Osborne got it right when he said that extracting information about Bruce was like pulling teeth. Even the Assembly's resolution asking for papers to be released has been treated in a cavalier fashion.

The Government continues to refuse to come clean on what is going on at Bruce, as I have just mentioned. Only today we learnt that the final cost - or the cost to date - is $44m.

Ms Carnell: But it is not.

MR STANHOPE: It is in your own papers, Chief Minister, that it is $44m. Mr Speaker, there can be perhaps no better example of how the Government has refused to come clean over Bruce than the fact that negotiations with the Commonwealth to extend the lease - negotiations the Chief Minister referred to in this house on 18 February - have, in fact, been resolved, we understand today. We understand that the negotiations on the future leasing of Bruce Stadium have been resolved. I understand that, in fact, the Chief Minister received a letter from the Prime Minister on 15 April offering to extend the lease beyond 2009. The latest information the Chief Minister provided to the Assembly was that the ACT would be granted a peppercorn rental on a lease of Bruce Stadium to the year 2009. That, of course, is very significant information in terms of thinking about the future of Bruce Stadium and how it might be financed and whether the Assembly should, perhaps, approve a retrospective appropriation. It is important for us to know what the future rental arrangements for Bruce Stadium are. Is the final position as indicated by the Chief Minister to the Assembly the information on which we rely in order to make our decisions? The last information provided to us is that Mr Howard or Mr Fahey has said to the Chief Minister, "Yes, you can have Bruce Stadium to 2009 for a peppercorn rental".

Ms Carnell: But that is what we have had for ages; that is the old lease.

MR STANHOPE: But we understand from the Prime Minister's letter to the Chief Minister of 15 April that, in fact, the Commonwealth is insisting on commercial rental from 2009 to 2024, that we are to take the stadium only on commercial rental after that date and that at the end of that period the stadium is to be revalued and transferred to the ACT. Of course, the prospect of the ACT Government being required to pay a commercial rental has the most significant implications for whether or not the Cayman Islands-type plans actually are workable and are possible, whether or not the sums that go to the amazing financial arrangements that have been developed are, in fact, of any worth at all - have any validity. The Chief Minister has known since 15 April - we have been debating this matter since 15 April - that, in fact, the ACT Government is going to be required to pay commercial rental for Bruce Stadium from 2009 to 2024.

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