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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 9 Hansard (31 August) . . Page.. 2571 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

So, this Assembly is being asked by this Government to take as a matter of faith the fact that $7.5m in the start-up year and $2.5m after that are reasonable amounts of money to generate the supposed economic benefits that we can hope for and expect from an event such as this. The Assembly has a right to be a little sceptical and cynical about some of claims that are made by government.

Ms Carnell: You always have been.

MR STANHOPE: We always have been, as the Chief Minister says. The Chief Minister's performance over the last couple of years, particularly in relation to Bruce Stadium, gives us every cause to be very cynical and very sceptical about anything she gets her fingerprints on. What an absolute disaster that was - an absolute limit of liability of $12.3m for the ACT taxpayer, a forward business plan and alleged private sector contributions that would take the matter to the $27m limit. Look at the similarities. Compare the similarities.

In relation to this car race, we have the additional disadvantage that there is no business plan. We have been provided with a summary of a business plan - a two-page summary with no item extending to more than two sentences. I suppose the Chief Minister can at least say that, in relation to the Bruce Stadium, she did have a business plan. It was a business plan that at estimates the Chief Minister was forced to describe as rubbish, but at least she had a business plan. She blushed to have to admit during estimates that it was nothing but rubbish and, of course, time has shown the extent to which it was rubbish. It was rubbish to the extent that the user agreements with the Raiders, the Cosmos and the Brumbies which are based on that business plan are so obviously inflated that the Chief Minister refuses an order of this Assembly to table them and refuses - - -

MR SPEAKER: Relevance, Mr Stanhope.

Mr Humphries: Mr Speaker, I have heard more in this debate about Bruce than I have heard about the V8s or the hospice. I would ask Mr Stanhope to be relevant.

MR SPEAKER: I uphold the point of order.

MR STANHOPE: It is an example of why we should have a business plan for a proposal such as this.

Ms Carnell: You do have one.

MR STANHOPE: We have a summary. All I have is a summary of a business plan. It is stamped "Confidential" and it is called "Summary". It says it is a summary. It is a two-page summary and the longest - - -

Ms Carnell: No, it is not.

MR STANHOPE: The one that I have is.

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