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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 4 Hansard (30 March) . . Page.. 1178 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

There is a bigger risk: Will Impulse survive in the bigger market? Can it prosper where the two Compasses went under. Access Economics have concluded that Impulse has a good business plan. Of course, in the end this does come down to a matter of judgment. Our judgment, made in a short time and with limited information, is that the proposal, if it comes off, will be good - in fact, very good - for Canberra. I do not think anybody doubts that or is prepared to contradict it. The amount of government support, if any, that should be given is, however, less clear cut. On balance and relying on the Access Economics report, the expenditure of $10m may be perfectly justified. But, and I think it is important that we make it clear, we are not debating that point here today and I will not express a concluded view on the quantum of any financial assistance that may or should be made.

There is another more basic element of the discussion and, given what I have just said and that the Assembly is being asked to note the Government's plans, I am being deliberate when I say "discussion". That element is the way that this Government does or does not do its business. It is worth reflecting on that. What is that way? It is a media release of 22 March, eight days ago, announcing the deal and saying that the Government will be bringing the proposal to the Assembly for approval. The Assembly was going to approve the proposal. That is reflected in clause 4 of the statement of intent, as Ms Tucker raised in her question today. But yesterday when we saw the colour of the Government's money we were being asked to note the proposal. Ms Tucker asked today, and I asked too, why the change. But who knows, who really knows?

I will not dwell on those issues much further. However, in relation to this matter, I do think that it is important that I place on the record my view that I do not accept that the Chief Minister has at any stage really sought to engender or develop a bipartisan position in relation to this proposal, the starkest example of that being the issue which was raised yesterday about the existence of the ACTBIS panel's review of the proposal, an assessment we only discovered existed as a result of a departmental briefing which I received late yesterday afternoon. When I asked about the content of the ACTBIS panel's review of the proposal, I was advised that I could not have a copy made available to me, although, as we have heard today, there does seem to be some movement on this issue. The Chief Minister indicated this morning that she would release the two-paragraph recommendation of the panel. Presumably, the minutes of the panel's review and the basis on which they came to their decisions about this proposal, which, I do need to state, have been described variously over the day as sensitive, commercial-in-confidence and, at one stage, Cabinet-in-confidence, will not be released.

As members would know, the ACTBIS panel is headed by Derek Volker, well respected in this town. If Mr Volker's assessment was made available to the Cabinet or to the Government as part of the information on which it based its decision, I think that we do need to ask why it cannot be provided in full to other members of this place if the Government is serious about including the members of the Assembly in a genuine consideration of this issue. Sadly, there is in the Government's and the Chief Minister's pondering on this question an echo that resounds very much in the redevelopment of Bruce Stadium and the attempts in relation to that to hide behind spurious notions of commercial-in-confidence. Mr McGowan, Mr Snow and business in Canberra should

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