Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 8 Hansard (30 August) . . Page.. 2620 ..
MR STEFANIAK (continuing):
My understanding is that it was always to be a 10-year lease. I am not going to go into the ins and outs of that because it is before the court; but, quite clearly, the facility there had a limited lifespan. That is why the ACT government is, I am assured by my colleague the Minister for Urban Services, in fact looking for suitable permanent venues. That is actually happening and that is why the government is happy to support Mr Corbell's motion.
However, I think Mr Corbell probably did run off at the mouth a bit earlier on in relation to this matter. He has been somewhat embarrassed by the court action to date. I know that it is under appeal; I am aware of that. But we do have on the Supreme Court a learned judge who recently dismissed the legal action in relation to the Australian Capital Territory. I do not actually know what was said in relation to the Commonwealth.
Indeed, my colleague Mr Smyth can take great heart from the comments of the learned judge. I have not actually seen judges comment in this way for quite some time in relation to a government minister. Justice Cooper actually said:
Having regard to the existence of the declaration of the land as national land, of which I find he was aware, the minister, acting honestly or honestly and reasonably, could not have concluded that the land was not required for a national land purpose.
I think there is a very good vindication of Mr Smyth and the territory there. That does, however, highlight in a rather glaring manner that the handling of that issue has been a bit of a disaster for Labor, the so-called alternative government. Really, I think that Mr Corbell should look very hard at that and not run off at the mouth so quickly in future. He did say on 30 June last year:
If I had been the Minister I would have lived up to my obligations and the obligations of the ACT government and I would have made the determinations that the Territory is required to make under the dragway lease. That is what I would have done, and that is what any reasonable and fair government would do.
He went on to say on the same day, almost giving a legal opinion:
... under its current leasing arrangements it is entitled to the renewal of its lease next to the Canberra international airport site for 10 years. That is what it is legally entitled to and I am confident that the dragway will be successful in its action against the Government.
Very incautious words were spoken there because the judge had a different view. In fact, had the other side been in government and Mr Corbell been the minister, not only would he have ended up with egg on his face but also, quite clearly, if steps had been taken by the dragway to start building things there, the territory could have been faced with a significant compensation bill. I think it is very important for people to be a bit circumspect in this regard. When you have the government's solicitors and PALM giving legal advice, it would be handy to take it into account, rather than blindly ignoring it. We are seeing what has happened.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .