Page 421 - Week 01 - Thursday, 11 December 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
for sport would be aware that in this calendar year we have been lucky to have two more teams enter into national league competitions—namely, the W-league team, our women’s soccer team, and the Canberra Darters into the national netball league. This additional funding will go to those teams, according to the tiered funding structure that was put in place following the review of national league team funding in 2006.
As we have come to expect from Mr Smyth, there was the usual throwaway line: if, at any point in the past, you have sought efficiencies or sought to restructure a particular program, any supplementation in that area, at any point in the future, constitutes a backflip. It is a fascinating way of approaching budgeting. One need only look through the lists of proposed recurrent savings that the Liberal Party put forward.
To follow Mr Smyth’s logic, with the efficiency dividend that the Liberals sought in InTACT, would that mean that any additional dollars spent on ICT within the ACT government in any future budget would constitute a backflip against seeking that efficiency dividend? I do not think so. I do not think it is reasonable to advance such an argument about seeking efficiencies. We did discuss this a little in the adjournment debate yesterday. It is typical of the Liberal Party and their approach to budgeting, in that that they were opposed to every specific—
Mr Seselja: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker: given your previous ruling which restricted my colleague Mr Smyth from talking about other legislation and past assemblies, I would ask you to bring Mr Barr back to order based on your previous ruling.
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please remain relevant, Mr Barr.
MR BARR: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In relation to the other matters that are part of this line of the appropriation, Mr Smyth also raised, in the context of national league teams, issues in relation to the waiving of certain charges for the Brumbies. As I am sure he would be aware, again, having shadowed this portfolio for some time, there were a range of issues that had to be resolved before the Brumbies were in a position to formally approach government to seek the waiver of those fees, most particularly the transfer of ownership of the bowling club.
It goes back a long time, but with respect to the bowling club membership handing over responsibility for the asset to the Brumbies, the completion of that transaction made it possible for the government to waive those fees. That did not occur until quite recently. That was, of course, a matter of some frustration for the Brumbies management and, indeed, for government, as we were hoping to have these matters resolved early. Of course, it did ultimately require a vote of the membership of the bowling club, and that took some time to achieve. Nonetheless, I congratulate Mr Fagan and his team at the Brumbies on moving to a resolution in relation to the bowling club.
I would also note, for members’ interest, that the government did provide the Brumbies with two payments. The first was to enable the fencing of their premier training facility and the second was money to refurbish and resurface that particular facility. So the combination of those two initiatives, together with the final resolution of ownership of the bowling club, means that the Brumbies are now in a position to move forward, more broadly speaking, with their financial plans.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .