Page 425 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 21 February 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
excess, but he was not really himself, of course. But there was much with which we agreed. At the beginning he put the debate, as he quite properly should have, on a bipartisan basis. Of course, all of us in this chamber support the statements that he made, except for the criticisms that he ventured into, not moderately, I might say, in the first phase, and I will not re-cover the ground. We are a sporting community and a sporting nation. I do not want to be the first person to speak on this motion about involvement in sport.
The Alliance Government's sport, recreation and racing policy has been in the process of development, out of subsisting policies of the parties that have formed this Alliance, for a couple of months. One reason that we held on for a little time was to complete some discussions with the racing industry. There have been two comprehensive, lengthy discussions in that area on issues of concern with parties known to members in this house. They are matters that have dealt with policy shaping aspects. We sought to give some indicators here. On the basis that the Alliance Government's policies are not bound by ideological rigidity, I foreshadow that, it not being an immutable policy, we may well see some further statements in the area to do with the racing industry, particularly as we approach funding issues a little more thoroughly. But as the position stands, it is stated in our policy in both the preamble and paragraph 10 in relation to those further discussions that we had. The policy belies the lengthy discussions that we have had in devising a policy that reflects the proper aims in the community. We sought to give a philosophical statement at the beginning.
My colleague Mr Stefaniak will outline in more substance actual sporting initiatives and areas. It lies with me to respond to the motion by saying simply that it falls on its face because we have tabled the policy. It did not take an MPI to bring our policy forward. It was up there yesterday evening, and if the member had asked for a draft of it, I do not think we would have objected to showing it to him. The failure, if there is any, is once again of the other side of the house to understand that we are in government, we are engaged in important negotiations with areas in the sporting, recreation and racing field, and that those negotiations will assist us to frame a policy that is community based, industry based and based on the environment in which we live.
The member opposite mentioned one or two other policies. He mentioned an arts policy. I draw his attention to the arts policies of the respective parties here. He will see that there is very little, if anything, of substance in issue between the parties forming the Alliance, and it is simply not true that this Government lacks a policy. What you are really saying, Mr Whalan, is that you have not seen the amalgam and the fully drafted policy. You have seen it today; it is a reality.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .