Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 5 Hansard (10 May) . . Page.. 1396 ..
MR STEFANIAK (continuing):
It is a very important step forward for Canberra and the region, and a very important step forward for our economy which is becoming increasingly more diverse as time goes on. We will have a much greater ability to weather the storms and the cycles that occur in terms of national swings and roundabouts and such like as a result of having a much more diverse economic base.
This really is one of the most significant events in Canberra's economy in recent times. I certainly join with other members in wishing them well, and I just wish that people would not be quite so negative about really good news things like this.
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: The discussion is concluded.
MR KAINE (4.37): In general, I support the thrust of the motion put forward by Mr Stanhope, with one exception. The Chief Minister has put forward a strong argument for not requiring the statement of claim and supporting documentation for the insurance claim for the concert to be tabled in this place, because it could influence the outcome of that claim. But in connection with the other three elements of Mr Stanhope's motion, I support the thrust of what he is attempting to do here. If Mr Stanhope is prepared either to remove paragraph (iv) of his motion or to deal with the four parts of his motion seriatim so that I can vote for three paragraphs and not for the other, then I am happy to proceed.
In connection with paragraphs (i), (ii) and (iii), I cannot see that the government has any substantial argument for not providing the information that Mr Stanhope has requested. When the government argue as strongly as they have for not releasing, you have to ask why they take this view. There is a strong feeling in this place that very often the government takes this view simply to avoid scrutiny. This is not a view that is held only in this place. The editorial in the Canberra Times of 3 May, only a week ago, describes the feeling that a lot of people have about this government. In connection with the Bruce Stadium, it says:
... the Canberra public has already been repeatedly treated to the disdain of a government that blithely cites "commercial confidentiality" to explain any lack of transparency.
That is a criticism that the government well deserves. Over recent years we have seen them pull that one time and time again in order to avoid accountability. The editorial makes another statement which this place should have regard for. Talking about natural justice and commercial justice, it says:
The question is whether an individual's reputation or the sanctity of a business's commercial methods should be accorded greater priority than the public's right to know how its money was spent and the duty of public officials to be accountable for their decisions. The latter are surely more precious ideals.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .