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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 7 Hansard (30 June) . . Page.. 1773 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

Mr Moore's committee was sceptical of the Government's claims of an Olympic bonanza. It recommended that all details of the justification of projects linked to the Olympic Games be made public. In other words, Mr Moore was recommending that the SOCOG agreement be made public. That is a recommendation, of course, that remains unmet.

In the context of today's debate, there are a number of particularly intriguing aspects of the Planning and Environment Committee's examination of the 1997-98 capital works process - first, the Treasurer's assertion that the redevelopment was driven solely by the opportunity to get Olympic soccer games played in Canberra; secondly, the plan for the project to be financed by $8m in up-front revenue; thirdly, the requirement of the short-listed developers to detail proposals to fund the redevelopment and manage the operations of the stadium. Let me say this about the first point: The expenditure of $27m to obtain two weeks of Olympic soccer matches is a highly optimistic investment. It would be interesting to learn whether the Government conducted any cost-benefit studies on the proposal. Even factoring in the long-term benefits of retaining the Raiders and the Brumbies in Canberra - of course, that rationale was not part of the original redevelopment push - the break-even point must have been in the extremely distant future.

Mr Speaker, the two short-listed developers referred to by officials before the Planning and Environment Committee were CRI Ltd, in association with Graf Consulting International, and Lend Lease. According to the Government, in answer to a question I placed on notice during this year's Estimates Committee proceedings, each bidder was required to address issues of design, construction method and program, financial consideration, and options for future management. CRI, according to the Government, included with its submission a business plan that took into account various revenue streams, including that from ticket sales. Lend Lease did not provide a business plan, but offered various alternatives to fund the project, including different mixes of debt, equity and ACT Government capital contribution.

CRI was chosen as project manager for the redevelopment based, again according to the Government - and this is ironic in retrospect - on its ability to sustain a government contribution of $12.3m and to develop a business plan identifying all possible sources of private sector revenue and enhancing the viability of the three major hirers. The Government has refused, unfortunately, to release the Lend Lease tender - because it is too secret for us to see - so members have yet to discover what the company may have offered had it won the job to manage the project. I, for one, would like to see what warranties Lend Lease made in relation to keeping the project within the $27m budget and what private sector financing possibilities Lend Lease was prepared to guarantee. The Auditor-General may report on that. Even if he does not, I propose to ask Lend Lease to appear before the Assembly Select Committee on Contracts and Procurement to discuss its bid in detail.

On 25 March, the Financial Review reported CRI's successful bid. According to the report:

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