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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 10 Hansard (14 October) . . Page.. 3112 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

The primary rationale put forward by the Federal Golf Club for the residential proposal is to provide funding for infrastructure improvements to their water supply and maintenance systems. The issue of better water management and supply is a legitimate concern for the club. However, the issue should not be addressed through the implementation of a lease purpose clause change which is not consistent with the proper administration of leasehold in the Territory.

If as a community we believe there are legitimate aesthetic, sporting and other benefits that flow from the operations of a golf course, then we need to make a decision about whether or not it is appropriate to subsidise their operation in a direct and transparent manner. The use of a lease purpose clause change to provide that subsidy is not a transparent one, and it is certainly not appropriate.

To protect the public interest, the Assembly should not be allowing any concessional leaseholder to make a windfall gain derived from converting their lease to allow for a purpose which increases its value. If we allow that to occur, we are sanctioning the exploitation of a public subsidy - granted in the public interest - for a private gain.

An issue also raised during the Urban Services Committee inquiry but not addressed by the majority report or the Government's response was that the land proposed by the Federal Golf Club for residential use should be withdrawn and incorporated into the hills, ridges and buffers area of Red Hill, which is managed as part of Canberra Nature Park.

Advice first brought to the attention of the committee by Mr Gillespie-Jones, one of the witnesses, indicated that the club's lease had a provision which allowed for land no longer needed by the golf club for golf purposes to be resumed by the Territory, and, if the Territory believed it was appropriate, to allow it to develop the land. Subsequent advice supplied to the committee by solicitors for the club suggested that in their view the decision to seek a variation to the Crown lease and the Territory Plan did not signify that the club wishes to surrender the land or that the Government should resume it.

We then come to the advice from the ACT Government Solicitor, which I think casts a much more interesting light on this situation. The Government Solicitor indicated that the Territory did have the power to withdraw land under clause 6(c) of the club's lease for a range of purposes, including - and I quote from the Government Solicitor's advice - "for any purposes incidental to the development, expansion or beautification of the City of Canberra" and "for any other public purpose". The advice goes on to indicate:

They are not my words, Mr Speaker, nor the words of residents who raised this issue but the words of the ACT Government Solicitor. What this advice confirms is that while Mr Gillespie-Jones's suggestion that there is a requirement for the Territory to resume the land if it is no longer needed for golf and related purposes is incorrect it is possible for the Territory to decide to withdraw the land from the golf club's lease and

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