Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 5 Hansard (10 May) . . Page.. 1344 ..
MR STANHOPE (continuing):
proper books of account, invoices, and other documents, which disclosed readily and completely the current financial position and gross revenue of the event. Which party was responsible for the payment of bills? (Extension of time granted.) On what basis did BOPL manage the contract with ITC? Exactly what does the Chief Minister's Office say?
Just to complete my comments in relation to the insurance policy, it is interesting to read in the Canberra Times exactly what Mr McManus said. It is reported in the Canberra Times of Thursday 27 April that, as I have just said, Mr McManus has estimated that he had personally paid out about $250,000 to the various contractors. He also talked about the fact that he had been subjected to death threats as a result of the cancellation of the concert. The Canberra Times article-and this is of interest to the ACT-went on to state:
Any insurance pay-out would go mainly to him, as the ACT's liability, through BOPL, had never gone beyond its own "small investment". "[The insurance claim] comes to me because all the bills are in my name", Mr McManus said.
But the contract required Mr McManus to take out insurance to cover both all of the ACT's costs and the ACT from loss of profit. From some back of the envelope sums that we have been able to do as a result of information provided by the Chief Minister, the anticipated loss of profit is something just for the ACT. Our share of the anticipated profit that we have lost is of the order of about $100,000.
It is interesting to try to reconcile that with Mr McManus' claim that the insurance would come to him when, under the terms of the contract, he has covered us to the tune of at least, on the Chief Minister's reckoning, around about $100,000. I am hoping that the papers that will be revealed as a result of this motion will explain exactly how BOPL managed this contract.
In conclusion, this motion is directed to obtaining information from the Stadiums Authority on the basis that the Chief Minister, or at least her spokesperson, believes that the Stadiums Authority is the appropriate government agency to give the information and that the information is in the possession of that authority. If it is not the case, as has been indicated publicly by the Chief Minister's spokesperson, that it is the Stadiums Authority, can the Chief Minister give us an undertaking today that she will provide the information herself from whatever agency it is that has the responsibility for this matter.
MS CARNELL (Chief Minister) (11.40): Mr Speaker, this morning Mr Stanhope again accused me of not releasing information. This is simply not correct. In the Legislative Assembly on 8 and 9 March 2000 I provided quite specific details about the total event budget expenditure, total revenue, total ticket sales-down to the fact that it was 10,558-and break-even analysis.
I will again provide that information. The total event budget was approximately $550,000; the total revenue to the stage of the concert being cancelled was $744,000; total ticket sales were 10,558; and the break-even analysis was that we had to sell 7,811 tickets at an average price of $71.00. After being asked some questions in the Assembly,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .