Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 2 Hansard (29 February) . . Page.. 349 ..
MR STANHOPE (continuing):
Now that the hirer agreements are public, will the Chief Minister confirm that under the contracts between BOPL and the Raiders and the Brumbies there is in fact a guaranteed revenue assurance clause? Will she confirm that under that clause the Raiders and Brumbies are in fact guaranteed a minimum amount of revenue for using Bruce Stadium?
MS CARNELL: Mr Speaker, the answer I gave in 1997 was on the advice of the Department of Business, the Arts, Sport and Tourism and was prepared by those directly involved in negotiations on the heads of agreement. As you will appreciate, a heads of agreement indicates those areas that are to be negotiated for a final contract but does not indicate the final negotiated position. There was clearly some movement between the heads of agreement and the final contracted position. This movement was as a result of a position to ensure that the Raiders were no worse off and to ensure their continued presence in Canberra.
Initially there was a heads of agreement. That is not a legally binding document, but it is an indication of the basis upon which negotiations will continue. I am advised that the answer I gave was put together by those who were directly involved in the negotiations on the heads of agreement. From there, certainly many things changed, not the least of which was the whole financial basis upon which the Bruce Stadium reconstruction occurred, as members will be aware.
It is interesting to note that under the previous agreement with the Raiders that those opposite negotiated - the Labor Party, I assume, negotiated it, because it was the one before the one the Raiders are on now - the Raiders were to take all revenue from all products at the stadium, and the stadium received a flat hiring fee. The stadium got a flat fee for use and the Raiders kept everything.
I am absolutely categorical on this. I believe the Raiders are important to Canberra. I believe it was absolutely essential to ensure a contract with the Raiders that would guarantee not just their continued presence in Canberra but their continued presence in the competition. I think that is absolutely essential. I am fascinated that those opposite would continue to put down the Raiders and the Brumbies and say that they would not support them. If they would not support them, they simply would not be in the competition.
In a nutshell, yes, things changed between the heads of agreement and the final agreement. So did many other things with regard to Bruce Stadium. That is not an unusual situation in a negotiating process.
MR STANHOPE
: Mr Speaker, can the Chief Minister, in light of the answer she just gave, explain to the Assembly why in her answer to Mr Whitecross on 24 September 1997 she referred to the deal struck with the Raiders at that time as a contract? Is it the Chief Minister's understanding that "contract", when used in this place, should be given its usual meaning? Can the Chief Minister explain why, in that answer to Mr Whitecross, she spoke of the income which would be generated and which the Raiders would receive. To which arrangement, which agreement and which contract was she referring in the answer to Mr Whitecross when she spoke about the contract entered into and when she spoke about, for instance, as reported on page 3226 of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .