Page 1654 - Week 05 - Thursday, 5 May 2016

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

---

Whilst the question in and of itself was not necessarily incorrect, the context was certainly incorrect. To that end, I am apologetic, of course. The original question was:

… have you personally held any discussions with Mr Lamont about the waiver of the lease variation charge for the Brumbies?

Supplementary 1 was:

… will you now table all the documents regarding the lease variation charge waiver to the Brumbies?

Supplementary 2 was:

… what was your role in negotiating … the federal Labor 2013 election promise …

And supplementary 3 was as I said.

At no point in the questions was there a reflection on any character, but it certainly was a mistaken identity. To that end, I do apologise to all concerned.

Question put:

That Mr Coe’s amendment be agreed to.

The Assembly voted—

Question so resolved in the negative.

MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (5.12): I will close the debate. Thank you, members, for the discussion today. It has been a useful discussion. I think the recognition by all members of the Assembly that there is scope for an unsolicited bids process—because we do want a space for people to come forward and be able to bring ideas and not solely rely on government going out to tender—is a useful discussion to have had.

I want to pick up on a point made by Mr Coe, which I think was a very important one, to reflect the fact that the GWS Giants are actively seeking to engage the community. I should have made more of this in my own speech.

For example, I am aware of the Telopea school, both the P&C and the board, having discussion with the Giants. The feedback, and some of it was reported in the

---

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