Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 6 Hansard (19 June) . . Page.. 2233..
Video and Program prod
Advertising & Prom
2. Riverdance was not an "in-house"production and the promoters did not take out pluvial/wet weather insurance. The show could proceed under light rain conditions or showers, as the performers were under cover.
3. The decision to not take out pluvial insurance was covered under the general risk management analysis:
a. The costs were too high at approximately 9-10% of production (pre HIH) and insurers require fairly accurate descriptions on the date and time of rain, and the type and amount of rain dropped in the period. The producer (Stephen Cole and Associates) did not have faith in this form of insurance from previous experience.
b. The average weather pattern for October indicated a low risk and, irrespectively, the Producer advised that a performance could continue under light intermittent showers.
c. The show was to be held over two nights and therefore some level of redundancy was built in for a cancelled show.
4. The Authority did not receive a quote for insurance. Expert advice from Stephen Cole and Associates was to accept the low risk as identified through the risk management analysis.
5. The recorded profit from Riverdance was $132,000. This did not cover the loss of Celtic Crossroads entirely.
6. No. 74%
7. No. Based on the rudimentary analysis of financial evidence, Riverdance did return a profit. Both events should be considered separately on their merits, not cumulatively.
(Question No 744)
Mr Smythasked the Minister for Economic Development, Business and Tourism, upon notice, on 18 June 2003.
In relation to Floriade and further to Question on notice 572:
(1) Has an audited figure for the operating surplus/deficit for the 2002 Floriade been calculated, if so, what is the figure, if not, when will an audited figure be available;
(2) How does the Government determine where the profits from Floriade will be spent;
(3) Where will the profits from the 2002 Floriade be spent;