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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 11 Hansard (19 October) . . Page.. 3261 ..

MR STANHOPE: My question is: Can the Chief Minister explain why the Government took no action to remedy this appalling situation until 22 September this year, two days before she signed off her answer to my question on notice on this issue, which obviously nudged them about the fact that they had this disastrous result, and three months after the consortium's first-year contract expired?

MS CARNELL: The Government sought advice on what our legal position was and other things before taking any action. Mr Stanhope asked me whether I was aware of where the mediation process was up to. I answered it truthfully and exactly. I said no. You cannot take that on notice.

MR QUINLAN: My question is to the Chief Minister. Can the Chief Minister provide the Assembly with the rationale behind a write-off of $14.4m from the plant and equipment at Bruce Stadium virtually immediately upon the completion of the works? Given the Chief Minister's keenness to employ the term "investment" in relation to moneys expended at Bruce and the claims of future value of all Bruce expenditure, could she not somehow convince the Auditor-General of the validity of her claims for the future and show the expenditure as an asset somewhere?

MS CARNELL: As I am sure that those opposite, Mr Quinlan and Mr Stanhope, do not know, under Australian accounting standards - AAS10, from memory - non-current assets must be revalued downwards when the carrying amount, the written-down value of the particular asset on the balance sheet, is assessed to be greater than the net amount that is expected to be received through cash inflows arising from the use of that asset. That is regarded as a RAT. For those opposite, that is a recoverable amounts test.

Mr Berry: Did you know that?

Mr Stanhope: Who wrote that brief?

MR SPEAKER: Order, please! The Chief Minister is answering the question, and I must say that the reply is sufficiently convoluted for me to believe that it is tax policy. Proceed.

MS CARNELL: The amount is analysed looking at what the inflows and outflows of cash would be, or what investment would be, against the initial investment, and that is the cost of the redeveloped stadium over the next 30 years, and calculating the net present value of these cash flows. That is the way RAT tests are done. The cash inflows included things like ticket sales for all events, up-front capital revenue from naming rights and sales of food and beverages. Cash outflows included the expense of running and maintaining the stadium.

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