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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 7 Hansard (2 July) . . Page.. 2169 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

what we all are entitled to believe in relation to Bruce, unless the Government, in this debate, can explain to us why that is wrong. We have $12.3m already spent. We have $34.6m admitted to date in relation to total redevelopment. We have $6.6m total furniture and fit-outs. We have $1.7m for start-up advertising, and we have $1m for associated legal and finance costs. If the Bill is passed today, we will have $5m for working capital. That adds up to roughly $49m.

To take the points that Mr Quinlan has been making, it would be useful to us, now that we are denied an estimates process in relation to the Bill, to know what assumptions have been made to suppose there is a need for $5m of working capital. What is it anticipated that Bruce Stadium management will do with $5m of working capital? Could that be explained to us? I would appreciate that being explained. Why do we need $5m of working capital?

There is another thing I would like explained, if the Government could respond in this debate. If they will just bear with me, or even forgive me, could they explain for me where the $6.6m for total furniture, fittings and equipment costs appears in the budget papers or where it was paid from? Where did the $1.795m for start-up advertising and marketing costs appear? How did we pay that? If the Government could just humour me and answer that, I would appreciate it. How and where did we pay the $6.6m for the total furniture, fittings and equipment? How and where did we pay the $1.795m for start-up advertising and marketing costs? How and where did we pay the $1m for associated legal and finance costs? I would like to know where, when and how those payments were made.

Ms Carnell: Some of them have not been.

MR STANHOPE: The Chief Minister says they have not been. Could you explain to me how they will be paid? I would like to know how each of those costs will be paid so that I can understand whether this project has cost $39m or $44m or $49. I will not be able to understand, and I do not believe any member in this place will be able to understand - - -

Ms Carnell: Dave understands.

MR STANHOPE: Mr Rugendyke, in your response on the Appropriation Bill, could you explain it to me? The Government does not seem to have the capacity or willingness to do it, despite its new full monty approach. Perhaps somebody else could explain to me whether it is $39m, $44m or $49m and what each of the components of each of those sum totals is. I would like those questions answered. Unless they are, I do not think any person in this place can possibly support this retrospective appropriation.

In the context of those comments that I have just made and our need to understand those figures, it would perhaps be useful to refer to the Government's response to those recommendations of the Estimates Committee report that went to Bruce Stadium. In the context of our need to have that basic information about what the working capital is for and how we are paying for the furniture and fit-out, it may be useful to read that part of

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