Mr RIPOLL (1:20 PM) —I rise today to give in-principle support to paragraphs 1 to 4 of this motion. I have some reservations about paragraph 5. I will first deal with the early sections of the motion, after which I will seek to highlight the problems with paragraph 5 of the motion. Paragraph 1 calls on the House to make a statement of its continuing support for the staging of the Sydney Olympics:

. . . as an opportunity to showcase Australia, its people, culture and . . . our sporting traditions;

There seems little doubt that there remains strong bipartisan support for the Sydney Olympics within this place. Further, the success of the recent opening of Stadium Australia—one of the major venues for the games—would indicate that many Australian people share that support.

With the expected influx of overseas visitors and international television exposure, the Olympics will provide the opportunity to showcase our nation and its people. It will also place Australia on the international stage and open to criticism on our ability to handle matters of internal affairs. It is a shame that the government appears intent on tarnishing the image that Australia will present to the international community.

We will be judged by more than just the games. Attacks on the rights of organised labour, the emasculation of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and the victimisation of our young unemployed are just a few examples—as is the Prime Minister's reluctance to acknowledge our indigenous Australians' custodianship of this land, not to mention his inability to offer the Australian people a serious proposal for a new preamble to our Constitution that could inspire us to be proud of our national identity. At the same time, the Prime Minister demands to perform the official opening of the 2000 Olympic Games.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I am glad the honourable member has got back to the games.

Mr RIPOLL —I have never left it, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is a role historically reserved for the host country's head of state. In our present situation, that would be the Queen of England. So could our real head of state please stand up?

The second paragraph states our acknowledgment of the `commitment, work and performance' of our `athletes and sporting organisations'. As a nation, we have always respected and held in high regard the efforts and achievements of our sportspeople, not only in relation to the Olympics but in a wide range of sporting events—local, national and international. What we need to remember, however, is that today's sporting heroes were yesterday's junior players. Without adequate funding to support the development of junior sports through the provision of high standard venues and equipment, accredited coaches and officials and access to quality competition our young people will not have the opportunity to develop to the elite stance required to continue to excel in high level competitions.

The next two paragraphs of the motion deplore `the disrepute caused' to the Olympics by the bribery allegations and `notes the concerns expressed . . . at the loss of integrity in the Olympic movement and its possible effect on the successful staging of Australia's 2000 Games'. It is truly unfortunate that the International Olympic Committee's structure and bidding process has failed to keep pace with the publicly expected standards of probity. We can only hope that the IOC will retain its commitment to move forward to address these problems in a full and open fashion. The spin-off effects of the original bribery allegations have tarnished the whole Olympic movement, not just our games in 2000. The efficacy of the win of every past host city, and those that will host the games after 2000 as well as every bidding city, has now been put in doubt. I believe that we can overcome the effects of the current controversies and go on to host the most successful games of this millennium. What we need to do now is focus on that task. We can deplore the fact that these issues arose, but if they lead to progressive and overdue reform of the IOC it will have produced a beneficial outcome that may see a revitalisation of the Olympics as a whole. Similarly, we can note the concerns expressed about possible ramifications flowing from these problems. We do need to pay heed to the views of others. However, we should not accept such as a fait accompli. The task of making the games a success, both as an event and financially, may be harder because of the recent controversy, but we need to focus on recovering that ground—not looking for someone else to blame.

This brings me to the last paragraph of the motion that `requests that SOCOG calls on the IOC to fund any shortfall in sponsorship finances which may result from inappropriate action by IOC members'. This section of the motion is largely a feelgood, blame others statement. I wonder why SOCOG should be the one left to make such an impractical and unlikely call on the IOC? If the mover of this motion believes this should be done, then why not request the Howard government to make this call? It would be very difficult to establish in a clear fashion what, if any, losses were the results of `inappropriate action' alleged `by IOC members'. The contracts surrounding the organisation and operation of the games in Sydney provide (1) that the responsibility to build the venues and to meet all costs associated with the games rests with the taxpayers; (2) that approximately $160 million be provided to the Australian Olympic Committee to maintain assistance to Australian athletes; and (3) that the IOC has the right to negotiate major international sponsorship agreements and to keep one-third of the revenue from such sponsorships, 40 per cent of all television revenue and five per cent of all marketing contracts negotiated by SOCOG. (Time expired)