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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 7 Hansard (2 July) . . Page.. 2244 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

We said we would be prepared to consider supporting this Bill if we were provided with all the information. But the resistance has been extreme. Even today, I believe I heard the Minister for sport, in talking about Bruce Stadium, say that the cost per seat was $1,750, which of course it is now. That comes out at $44m. That is what we are up to. I remember in the Estimates Committee the Chief Minister and officials convincing us that in fact the cost per seat was $1,300. These are the sorts of issues that we are now dealing with.

During estimates members will recall that we were advised, apropos of nothing, that it was $1,600 a seat. Mr Quinlan did some multiplication on that and it came out at a cost much greater than was then being presented to us by the Government. At that stage we were still down at $29m to $31m. Of course, the figure was then quickly adjusted down to $1,300 to make the sums add up. The Minister for sport came in tonight - I was not in the chamber but I believe I have heard him correctly - and said that for a stadium with a per seat cost of $1,750 we are doing rather well. At estimates the Chief Minister delivered the same speech about how well we were doing with a stadium that had been delivered at $1,300 a seat. All of a sudden, we have jumped 450 bucks a seat and we have - - -

Mr Berry: Climbing at that rate, what are they going to be like in six months' time?

MR STANHOPE: That is right. From $1,300 a seat, presented to us as a really great bargain - I think everybody remembers the comparisons that the Chief Minister drew between Bruce Stadium and a number of other stadiums at $1,300 a seat - here we are a month later acknowledging that in fact it is $1,750 a seat. It is all these factors that are so important to the consideration by this Assembly of a Bill to retrospectively approve this enormous amount of money that was unlawfully expended.

Our need for this sort of information could have been overcome if the matter had gone to the Estimates Committee. It having not gone to the Estimates Committee, it behoved the Government to bribe us with all the information we needed. I did mention earlier, in discussing aspects of the budget, that the questions that we would truly like answered were about the sorts of things that Mr Quinlan was speaking about. Why do you need $5m of working capital? Why are we appropriating that? How are you going to use it? What are the business assumptions that underlie the need for $5m of working capital that we are approving tonight?

How did you pay the $1m of legal fees? How did you pay the $1.7m of up-front marketing? How did you or are you going to pay the $6.6m for furniture and fitout? We are now up to $49m - admitted - for this project.

Mr Humphries: That is just sheer and utter nonsense.

MR STANHOPE: Give us your response then. Tell me why it is not $49m. Tell me how you get it at $44m and keep it there.

Ms Carnell: It is not $44m; it is $39m.

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