Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 5 Hansard (10 May) . . Page.. 1341 ..
MR STANHOPE (continuing):
However, a spokesperson for the Chief Minister was reported in the Canberra Times as saying that the Stadiums Authority had revealed all the information about the Ultimate Rock Symphony contract that it was willing to. The quote from the Canberra Times is:
A spokesman for Chief Minister Kate Carnell said last night that there was nothing else the Government, or Labor, could do to extract those details, as both the Stadium Authority and ITC had revealed all they were willing to.
"What more can we do?" the spokesman asked.
Well, there is something more we can do: we can ask the Stadiums Authority, through this motion, to provide the documents to the Assembly. That is what we can do, that is what the legislation says we can do. Whether the authority is willing to provide information or not, as I have just indicated Mr Speaker, is not the question. The authority must provide the information if it is requested of it by either the Assembly or the minister.
Explicitly, this motion calls upon the authority to provide all documents, if they are in the possession of the authority, relating to the Ultimate Rock Symphony that was to have been held at Bruce Stadium on 4 March, including, but not limited to, the following documents. The motion calls for the provision of the budget for the Ultimate Rock Symphony, showing expected revenue, expenses and profits. I assume that members of the Assembly are in the same boat as me in that they are not interested in how much any individual performer was paid. We are not seeking that information. We simply want the budget for the concert, showing expected revenue, expenses and profits.
We would like to see, in particular, the reconciliation statement of revenue and expenses specified in clause 4.7 of the contract between BOPL and the touring company. I recall, from memory, that under the contract the reconciliation statement was to have been prepared by 23 March, or something like that. So the reconciliation statement has been, one would hope, in existence for a month and a half or more now. I simply cannot see why it would be inappropriate to provide to the Assembly the reconciliation statement of revenue and expenses.
The motion also calls for provision to the Assembly of the insurance policies that one would hope had been taken out pursuant to the contract, as required under the terms of the contract, and which Bruce Operations was entitled, pursuant to clauses 2(i), 2(j) and 2(k) of the contract, to ask for or be provided with a copy of. Once again it seems to me there is absolutely no reason that can be presented for not providing to the Assembly a copy of the insurance policy.
Ms Carnell: Tell us the reasons for providing it.
MR STANHOPE
: Because there is no reason not to provide a copy of the insurance policy. It is quite legitimate for this Assembly to view this document. There is a genuine matter of public interest to see the nature of insurance policies that have been generated by BOPL as a result of a contract between BOPL and a joint partner. What we are talking about here is a joint arrangement. BOPL, an emanation of the ACT government, an organisation owned by the ACT public which is managing a facility owned by the ACT public, entered into an arrangement with an entrepreneur, a private sector business person, to conduct a rock concert. The government quite rightly, BOPL quite rightly,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .