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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 3 Hansard (26 May) . . Page.. 585 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

As part of the community consultation process, the Belconnen community, primarily through the coordinating role of the Belconnen Community Council and its president, Mr Graeme Evans, who I see in the Assembly today and who has taken a particular interest in this subject, engaged in extensive consultations with the people of Belconnen. The Belconnen Community Council consulted with over 1,000 people on their preferred views in relation to the construction of a pool in Belconnen. Some of the findings of those two consultancies and some of the recommendations of the Bureau of Sport, Recreation and Racing - those public servants in Canberra devoted to meeting the Government's objectives for creating an active Australian Capital Territory - were that the construction of an aquatic facility in Belconnen was something that would meet a significant public benefit in the ACT. I think this is the crux of the matter. We had a promise by the Liberal Party to build a facility. We had the spectacle of the Minister for sport turning the first sod.

At that time and around about that time - and the evidence is actually conflicting today - there were complaints. We have actually had one of the complainants writing to the Canberra Times today to declare that the Minister for sport knew about their complaint before he turned the first sod. That is what the complainant alleges in the Canberra Times today. The Government rejects that and believes that the complainant is wrong in that regard. He, in any event, handed his complaint to the Chief Minister, according to his letter in the Canberra Times today. Despite that, of course, the Government at the time - the Liberal Party - made no effort at actually qualifying its support for the construction of a swimming pool in Belconnen. It actually went to the election with it as a firm promise. It was a promise it continued to repeat. Those are the bald, tawdry political facts, I guess.

We actually had a party running to an election with a very determined policy of building a pool. Two months later the promise was broken. The promise was that the pool would be constructed over the next two years. That promise has been broken. What is the justification for breaking the promise? The complaint which was lodged in January with the Competitive Neutrality Complaints Unit actually has been shown to have some substance, apparently.

But we must look, I think, at the way in which that unit was established and the terms of reference of that unit. I think it is a major concern that I do not think anybody in Canberra knew there was an inquiry going on into the pool. The major proponents - the people of Belconnen, through their community organisation - - -

Ms Carnell: They knew there was a complaint.

MR STANHOPE: I do not believe that the Belconnen Community Council knew anything about a complaint, and I do not think the Belconnen Community Council was invited to make a submission. The only submission taken by the Competitive Neutrality Complaints Unit was the submission of the Bureau of Sport, Recreation and Racing, which the Competitive Neutrality Complaints Unit then proceeded to disregard.

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