Page 3537 - Week 13 - Thursday, 26 November 1992

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


Mr Berry: Because we might be able to check up on you.

MR DE DOMENICO: I am prepared to give you the names privately, Mr Berry. You can check up all you like. They will tell you that if Canberra put in anything like a good bid for 2002 we would stand a very good chance of being successful. Adelaide might rebid, of course, and I think that if Adelaide rebids we should think twice about putting in a bid of our own. They are the facts.

The Government has a responsibility to its people. It cannot be seen to be spending money on risks. These are difficult financial times. Can the ACT afford it? Would it be worthwhile? The Liberals believe that the answer is yes, if the bid is structured intelligently. We believe that the answer is yes, whether we are talking about a 2000 Olympic Games bid for Sydney or a 2002 Commonwealth Games bid for Canberra. In fact, with the Canberra Commonwealth Games bid for 2002, even if lost, we would win. It can be a win-win situation if the bid is structured to benefit Canberra. This bid can promote Canberra, unite the business community, develop our sporting infrastructure, and develop the processes which in the future can attract many different major sporting events, not just the Commonwealth Games for 2002.

What if we lost the Commonwealth Games bid for 2002, as Mr Lamont believes we would? That shows great foresight. What if we did lose if we put in a bid for 2002 but attracted 10 major international sporting competitions over the next seven years? What you lose on the merry-go-round you pick up on the swings. If you are smart, if you are clever, a bid can be structured to attract to Canberra not only the Games but many other major events. The benefits of promoting Canberra as a city in the big league will continue throughout the 10 years of preparation, and in the years after the bid.

If Mr Lamont spoke to Rod McGeoch and other people involved with the Sydney Olympic Games bid, they would say the same thing to him that I have been saying here now: Even if Sydney does not win - and I believe that they will - they will have received enormous benefits in terms of tourism promotion and other things by just putting in a bid. If Mr Lamont would care to speak to Mr McGeoch, that is what he would say. Let me tell you why Mr McGeoch would say that - because that is what Mr McGeoch has said to me on the countless occasions I have spoken to him. As for Mr Lamont attempting to convey the impression that the Liberal Party does not support that bid, let me also tell Mr Lamont that when I was overseas recently I did a little lobbying for the Sydney 2000 Olympics bid. For Mr Lamont to come in here and tell untruth after untruth after untruth, time and time again, is just sheer humbug and belies the facts.

Ms Follett: I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. To accuse a member of this Assembly of telling untruths is unparliamentary and should be withdrawn.

Mr Humphries: Half-untruths is okay, apparently.

MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr De Domenico, I suggest that you withdraw it.

MR DE DOMENICO: I withdraw. For Mr Lamont to come into this place and tell half-untruth after half-untruth after half-untruth after half-untruth after half-untruth is sheer humbug.


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