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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 10 Hansard (24 September) . . Page.. 3228 ..

MRS CARNELL: Mr Speaker, the line of questioning indicates quite definitely that if those opposite are elected next February we will not have Olympic soccer. We will not be an Olympic city. We will not be in the race, Mr Speaker, because the sorts of things that those opposite are questioning with regard to the upgrade of Bruce Stadium are a basis for our being able to host Olympic soccer. They are also, as Mr Neil said, the basis of our being able to keep in Canberra some of our high-profile sporting teams. Obviously, those opposite do not want Olympic soccer. If they are elected, I am sure they will rip up the contract.

Mr Berry: Mr Speaker, there is a standing order related to relevance. I do not remember Mr Whitecross asking a question about Olympic soccer at all. In fact, he asked about the Cosmos deal, and Mrs Carnell has yet to answer that.

MR SPEAKER: I cannot say that the answer to the question was entirely concise, because there was a lot to it. It was certainly confined to the subject matter, however. I believe that the Chief Minister has finished. Have you finished?

MRS CARNELL: Mr Speaker, I can guarantee that the basis for negotiations with all three codes is the same.

I ask that all further questions be placed on the notice paper.

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, on 19 June last year I answered a question from Mr Moore concerning the Kingston Women's Bowling Club site. I indicated in the Assembly late last week that I would revisit this issue following advice I gave to the Assembly. I have examined the answer I gave in June 1996 and compared it with statements made in the Auditor-General's report tabled earlier this month. The development was approved in May 1994, and change of use charge of an amount of $252,800 was paid in August 1994. Following a submission of the then separate design and siting application form, appeals were lodged with the Land and Planning Appeals Board. The board's decision was not made until October 1995, and consequently a new lease could not be granted by the delegate until November 1995.

The Auditor-General takes the view that there may have been discrepancies in the original approval process under the previous Government and as a result some revenues forgone to the Territory. However, based on legal advice I sought after this report was presented, there is no room for me or this Government to seek recovery of forgone revenue. The Auditor-General states that the then Department of the Environment, Land and Planning applied an incorrect remission rate to the charge for Kingston, the betterment for Kingston, because of the age of the application. Officers in the former DELP had accepted a letter of application from the bowling club in 1989 as initiating the variation. Therefore, their remission dated from 1989 and a 50 per cent remission applied.

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