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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 5 Hansard (10 May) . . Page.. 1345 ..

MS CARNELL (continuing):

I wrote to BOPL, as I indicated to the Assembly I would, on 9 March 2000, seeking the board's agreement to the release of documents relating to the concert on 30 March 2000. This was again in line with my commitment to the Assembly.

BOPL then wrote to the International Touring Co Pty Ltd, ITC, requesting release of this information. The ITC responded on 7 April 2000, agreeing to release the contract which Mr Stanhope has quoted significantly from this morning-so it shows that it was released. They said, though, that they were not happy to release details surrounding the draft budget and some other documentation such as, but not limited to, the insurance policy and other information specific to performers and individual contractors.

So all information has been released. That information itself does not actually make any difference whatsoever to the amount of money that the ACT has committed, which is all in the contract itself. The arrangements involved are in the contract itself. For the life of me I cannot understand why what individual performers were paid and how much money the ITC had in its budget for things like light, energy and international airfares are in the public interest. I certainly can see why the total expenses are in the public interest, but that information has already been released. So, Mr Speaker, all information, including, as I say, the full contract between BOPL and the International Touring Co, has been released.

Mr Stanhope indicated that he was unhappy that information included in the budget had not been released. On 5 May this year Mr Tony Blunn wrote again to the International Touring Co seeking a release of those parts of the budget that do not disclose any details of an individual performer or contract, including details on the progress of insurance and the policy's operation. A response to this request was received this morning. That is quite a quick turnaround because Mr Blunn wrote on only 5 May.

Mr Speaker, I am happy to release the documentation but, again, I would ask members to ask why this is so important. Certainly, the amount they were planning to pay Roger Daltry has been blacked out, as Mr Stanhope rightly said was appropriate, and payments to individually named contractors have been taken out. The information that is left relates to really exciting things like: international airfares, $27,000; domestic airfares; accommodation; cleaning and electricity; credit card charges; followers' spots, whatever they are; production; lights and videos; staging; trucking; car hire; publicist; press; posters; radio/television advertising; special advertising; immigration and visas-the list goes on. Why is that of interest to anybody here?

Mr Stanhope: Why is it commercial-in-confidence?

MS CARNELL: Again, it is a matter of how much was the budget, not how much was paid to individual performers. This budget has lots of black lines through it and those black lines relate to individual performers. If we disregard those black lines with numbers beside them, the thing that is interesting about this whole document is the total expenses at the bottom. What is of interest is how much were the total expenses for the concert, not how much money was spent on immigration and visas, back line hire, accountancy and coach hire. The total expenses have already been released and that, I agree, is in the public interest. But, for the life of me, I do not understand why information relating to what the International Touring Co paid for production and lights is so pressing that we have to debate this matter today.

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