Page 4608 - Week 16 - Tuesday, 27 November 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MRS GRASSBY: Yes, that was about it. He was not sure where he was going and what he was doing and he did not know what he was there for anyway.
Dr Kinloch: It is a very knotty problem.
MRS GRASSBY: Well, somebody once said that he was about as useless as - no, I will not go on to say that. The point I would like to make is about a particular lease which I have been arguing about for the last couple of weeks, namely, block 2, section 22, division of Phillip - the Phillip pool. I find it incredible that that lease is to be sold or has been sold. I have questions on the notice paper that I do not seem to be able to get answers to. Obviously the Chief Minister or his Department do not know the answers or cannot give me the answers. They have been on the notice paper for some time. But can I say - - -
Mr Jensen: Question time, Ellnor.
MRS GRASSBY: They are on the notice paper. The lease under which the Phillip swimming pool and ice-skating rink has operated since 1979 allowed for an extension of the lease after 10 years. The extension would have been continued on a rental basis and the rent would have been determined by the Government. This arrangement was to continue for 10 years, which would have taken it to 1999, at which time the facilities would have reverted to the Government, which would not have been required to pay any compensation, as the Chief Minister said on a program run by Pru Goward. Simply put, the Government would have received rent for 10 years and then owned the facility at the end of the 10 years.
The Government, I understand, has chosen to sell the facility on a 99-year lease basis. The lessee is required to pay the Government $32,000 a year for 10 years in return for a 99-year lease over the complex, which I find absolutely incredible. Under the first option, which was the option set out in the previous lease, the Government would have received 10 years worth of rent at probably about the same level as it receives under the second option, but at the end would have owned all the facilities in this complex. There appears to be no rational explanation for why the Government decided to offer the lessee a 99-year lease rather than proceeding with a 10-year rental option as set out in the original lease.
I find it absolutely incredible. As I say, I have put questions on the notice paper and I do not seem to be able to get an answer about this. I have been told by two clubs in the area that they would have liked to tender for this lease. One particular club did offer to buy from the lessee but found out that he was talking in sums of millions. In that case I would say that we should be talking in such sums, not $320,000. The Chief Minister said that there were repairs to be done. I would have
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .