Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (24 May) . . Page.. 1655 ..
MS CARNELL (continuing):
my knowledge that is the case. I also understand that the event is expected to generate economic benefits of over $52 million for the ACT over five years and create an estimated 150 full-time or part-time equivalent jobs over that five-year period.
In the first year the event is expected to boost the ACT economy by an amount in the order of $5.3 million. This is based on the attendance of, from memory, an estimated 50,000 spectators in the first year, increasing by 10 per cent per annum, up to 80,000 in the fifth year. June is a quiet month for tourism operators. I have attended quite a number of tourism functions over the last few weeks and it has been interesting to talk to people who run accommodation venues in the ACT. They are all talking about how high the booking rates already are for the June long weekend. So, it shows that this event has already picked up the problems that exist in what is a quiet time of the year. Restaurants, retail and transport operators will also benefit from increased tourism numbers.
The event will be telecast to something like 2.25 million domestic viewers through Network Ten and Foxtel and 85 million international viewers throughout China, Japan, New Zealand and Asia-almost as many people who will watch the Brumbies win on Saturday night.
MR QUINLAN: Mr Speaker, my question is to the Treasurer. The Treasurer and the Chief Minister have frequently used the figure $344 million as the bottom line deficit that the government inherited from the previous Labor government. In fact, Mr Hull of the Canberra Times used it in his article today, so it proves that if you say something often enough it will be believed. Can the Treasurer inform the house of the operating deficit for that particular year, 1995-96, before abnormal items, and what would the figure have been in 1995-96-you might have to take this one on notice-if the accounting standards used today were used back then?
MR HUMPHRIES: I was not the Treasurer in 1995-96, so it is very hard to give the member a figure of that kind. I will, however, quote for his benefit the figure he used on that very subject. This morning he said that there was a $91 million abnormal item in that particular year, which leads one, if you take that for granted, to discount the figure of $344 million to a figure of about $250 million. On checking the Auditor-General's report for that year, the figure used by the Auditor-General for the 1995-96 operating loss was not $344 million-I do not know where this figure comes from-but was $349 million. If you exclude the PTE sector, it was only $347 million. The following statement is made on page 2 of the Auditor-General's report entitled 1995-96 Territory Operating Loss:
The accrual operating loss incurred by the ACT from all its operations in 1995-96 was $349m. This comprised $347m loss on General Government Sector operations and $2m from Public Trading Enterprise operations after adjusting for dividends and tax equivalents payable to the Government by the Public Trading Enterprises.
It is clear that that is the figure that the Auditor-General refers to. The Auditor-General perhaps negligently failed to mention in the pages of the report that I have in front of me the $91 million abnormal item. Assuming that is what the figure is-that is Mr Quinlan's
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .