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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 2 Hansard (29 February) . . Page.. 319 ..

MR QUINLAN (continuing):

particular activity and assets of the Territory, then that will be done per medium of the Assembly rather than under the sorts of broad dimensions of the Bill as it was originally set out. So, generally, with a whole number of amendments, most of which do the same thing and just correct the title, we will be supporting the Bill in the detail stage.

MS TUCKER (10.40): The Greens will support this Bill in principle as it appears that this new corporation will provide a better level of accountability over the operations of Bruce Stadium than the current arrangements. This new corporation will have clear lines of accountability that are set out in legislation,. unlike the obscure operations of Bruce Operations Pty Ltd. It has become fairly clear that the management of the redevelopment of Bruce Stadium has been a debacle, so anything this Assembly can do to improve the way that the stadium is managed will, I am sure, be welcomed by the ACT community.

I have a few questions, however, about what the Government's real intentions are with this corporation. It was unclear from the Minister's presentation speech or the explanatory memorandum whether this corporation is being established to only manage Bruce Stadium or whether other sporting facilities in the ACT will be transferred to it. The name of the new authority, the Stadiums Corporation, and its functions as listed in the Bill certainly give the impression that it is more than just about Bruce Stadium.

I have some concerns that we may be creating a monster here that will eventually take over all the major public sporting and entertainment facilities in Canberra. While I can accept that Bruce Stadium is of such a scale and function that it needs to be operated on a commercial basis, I am not sure that the public benefit of having all Canberra's sporting ovals or other public facilities being managed on the same basis has been demonstrated at this stage.

The proposed functions of the corporation in relation to its ability to manage cultural and entertainment events and facilities also appear to overlap with the existing Cultural Facilities Corporation and the Canberra Tourism and Events Corporation, so I think there should be some clear demarcation here. I have therefore put forward some amendments to the Bill that will place some restrictions on the ease with which the Government can transfer assets to the new corporation. I am not saying that this corporation should only manage Bruce, but that the transfer of other sporting and entertainment facilities needs to be assessed on a case by case basis. I will talk more about these amendments in the detail stage.

MR RUGENDYKE (10.42): Mr Speaker, I will be brief. I offer my support for this Bill and also for Mr Quinlan's package of amendments. These amendments by Mr Quinlan certainly help to eliminate the confusion of having the word corporation in the title of a statutory authority.

Mr Speaker, I note that in Mrs Carnell's presentation speech it was stated that this Bill would introduce "a high degree of accountability and public responsibility". I think it is important to place on the record that the passing of this Bill does not remove the accountability or public responsibility for past dealings relating to Bruce Stadium. The

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