Page 1178 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 20 March 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
What is important—and this is where I will be supporting Mr Barr’s amendment—is that we are actively engaging the stakeholders. The commitment to continue to work with little athletics, Athletics ACT and masters athletics, who are undoubtedly the key stakeholders here, is the right pathway. Mr Barr has made the case that those groups have been studied and consulted with in the course of assessing the likely site. I am sure there are pluses and minuses for each location, but in thinking about this and the best way to proceed, what Mr Barr has outlined in the context of continuing to consult with those groups does seem like a perfectly sensible way forward. That is the basis on which I will be supporting the amendment.
In some ways I feel that that is what Mr Doszpot is seeking as well—to continue the discussions. With a project like this, there remain important details to be sorted. Perhaps the difference there is that Mr Doszpot seems to want to be going back and starting the decision again. Clearly there are some people who have expressed a view to him that this is not the right location.
It becomes a question of when you actually take a decision. One consultation process has been followed; a location has been identified. Do we now go back and revamp that because some people do not agree? I am not sure that that is the right approach. I think the approach of continuing to work with the key stakeholders to get the design right, to sort out the details, is the correct approach.
It may be that in that discussion Mr Barr is heavily impressed to actually reconsider the decision. That is something he might want to consider. But I am not going to sit here and try to second-guess that decision at this point in time. I do not think that that is a useful role for the Assembly, looking at this issue in the space of 24 hours, to try and undertake.
From the informal consultations I have undertaken with those I know in the athletics community since Mr Doszpot brought this motion forward—so that has only been in the last 24 hours—I have heard no major objections. People are saying, “This is a good project; we want it to go forward.” On that basis I will be supporting the amendment put forward by Mr Barr.
MR HANSON (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (5.49): I rise today in support of Mr Doszpot’s motion. I commend him for the work that he has done on this; I know that it has been extensive and reflects his deep involvement within our sports community within the ACT. That was something that stemmed from his role as the chair of the Olympics here in Canberra.
This motion today is about the flawed process that has been undertaken by the government. Once again, we have seen a government that promised to do one thing but did another. During the election they promised to study and to seek community feedback for the location of the proposed track. Their policy document for the $4.5 million track states:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video