Page 3536 - Week 13 - Thursday, 26 November 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The Chief Minister, I believe, would accept this. According to her recent ministerial statement on tourism, nine out of 10 of the future events being cooperatively coordinated by the events unit are sporting events. The reason nine sporting events were mentioned in the ministerial statement on tourism is that these events will attract significant financial benefits to Canberra. The events will bring people and dollars into the city: Motels, restaurants, transport and attractions will all benefit. Canberra will create an impression on these visitors, who will go home and promote our city. Sports organisations will spend money here. The international, national and local press will cover these events. Businesses will come into Canberra and spend money.
The ripple effect of benefits lasts long after the event is over, as we all know. If successful, the event will pay for the development of the sporting facility, which is then available for the people of the city to use. Developments of this nature significantly increase the infrastructure of the city and the economy. "What if there is a loss in financial terms?", one might ask. For example, let us say that there is a loss of $100,000 in staging an international event. The $100,000 bottom line figure ignores the press coverage, the full motels, the busy restaurants, the promotional benefits, the business money spent here, the favourable impressions, the return visits, the transport used, the boost to the economy and the infrastructure development.
Could this Government, or any government, spend $100,000 for the same benefits? The answer to that question is no. The fact is that these benefits, while they do not figure in the bottom line, do exist, and these benefits are very good value for money. Perhaps a $100,000 loss is made, but elsewhere in the community a $200,000 or more - perhaps $2m - benefit is made. The loss in those terms is negligible.
While we are happy and delighted to support the Sydney Games bid, there are two reasons why this Government has yet to support the Commonwealth Games 2002 bid. From the comments of Mr Lamont, one might think they are now trying to play politics with it. Let them try. One reason they have not supported it is the politics, and the other is fear about taking a reasonable risk. Allow me to deal with the latter first.
As I have just explained, hosting a major sporting event is a risk, whether it is an Olympic Games bid, a Commonwealth Games bid, an international soccer match, or the like. It is a risk that carries intangible benefits, though. What you miss out on on the swings you pick up on the merry-go-round. Sydney understands this; it is making a bid for the 2000 Olympic Games. The ACT Government understands this because it has today decided to talk about supporting this bid. We have heard even Mr Berry at other times support the bid, and we commend the Government for that.
Let me also say that, in turn, Mr Peacocke, a New South Wales Minister, and Mr Baird, another New South Wales Minister, and some Federal members of parliament on both sides of the house, have publicly supported a bid for Canberra to host the 2002 Commonwealth Games. For Mr Lamont to stand up here in this Assembly and say that the talk around the world is that Australia has no chance of getting the 2002 Commonwealth Games is utter nonsense. Let me tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that before I was elected to this house I hosted a lunch with various figures in the Commonwealth Games Federation from overseas who make the decisions and who shall remain nameless.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .