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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 8 Hansard (30 August) . . Page.. 2618 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

I am aware of the legal dispute between the government and the dragway organisers about leasing the current dragway next to Canberra Airport and that the dragway recently lost its claim to have the lease for the dragway extended, but I am not in a position to judge the merits of the case. I understand that the dragway feels that it has been hard done by and wants the government to make some redress for the loss of the lease, but I cannot support this motion as it is because of my fundamental concerns about the nature of the activity. I am therefore putting up some amendments which set some conditions on the negotiations called for.

In my first amendment I have sought to omit the preamble to the motion as it is really just a value judgment about the benefits of drag-racing which is unsubstantiated and unbalanced. Secondly, I do believe that if there is to be a dragway in the ACT, then it must fulfil two requirements. One is that it be located in a place that will have no noise impacts on existing residential areas. Members would be aware of the continuing dispute between the other motor racing venue in the ACT, Fairbairn Park, and residents of the Ridgeway in Queanbeyan over racing noise.

Mr Stefaniak: About three people.

MS TUCKER: There is also the annual dispute over the Summernats involving the residents of Watson and Dickson, and it involves more than three people. Mr Stefaniak interjects that it is about three people.

Mr Stefaniak: Three people at the Ridgeway, Ms Tucker.

MS TUCKER: He says that it is about three people at the Ridgeway. I think there are more than that. There are certainly a lot more than that in Watson. Not least is the new dispute regarding the location of the V8 supercar race right in the centre of Canberra. I do not want to be party to the creation of another inter-resident dispute over motor racing.

The other requirement I have is that the dragway must be financially self-supporting. I do not believe that drag-racing warrants government subsidisation through the provision of free or cheap land. If drag-racing is such an attractive activity that it is providing economic benefits for the ACT, then it should be able to generate its own funding and not rely on government welfare.

MR STEFANIAK (Minister for Education) (11.37): Mr Speaker, I will address the substantive motion first and look at the circulated amendments later. The only comment I would make at this stage in relation to Ms Tucker's amendments is about the reference to eliminating all noise impacts. I would point out that lots of studies done by David Lamont as sports minister and by my bureau since I have been sports minister have indicated that it probably would be impossible to eliminate noise impacts. I think you can minimise them. I simply make that point, but I do stress that we will be considering those amendments later.

In addressing the substantive motion, I accept that there is probably a lot of politics in what Mr Corbell is doing today-I will come to that in a minute-but I do not think that there is any great drama in it for the government as we are, in fact, already looking for

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