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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 8 Hansard (30 August) . . Page.. 2627 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

I think that Mr Corbell ought to consider carefully whether he should now put aside this question of the noise impact, as he proposes to do presumably by supporting Mr Berry's amendment to eliminate the effect of the amendment of Ms Tucker. I think that there is a case for ensuring that we do proceed on the basis that we eliminate noise impacts, and that we provide the lease at full market value and I think that we ought to ensure that we get with that a reasonable basis on which to proceed on a permanent basis with drag-racing in the ACT.

Mr Speaker, the government will continue to do what it has done to date, which is first of all to accept the state of the law, which is that we cannot provide for the issuing of any further leases over the land previously occupied at Fairbairn. Secondly, we will continue negotiations and discussions with the drag-racing organisation on an alternative site. Therefore, the motion that Mr Corbell has moved is, in a sense, quite redundant in that exactly what is being urged in the form of his motion now before the chamber is already being done and has been being done for some.

I wrote to Mr Devlin some time ago inviting him to hold discussions with the infrastructure and asset management group of my department and I understand that those discussions have been proceeding. I might indicate that the present discussions are centring upon lot 6/11 in the Majura Valley or an area close by that area. I am not sure at this stage how that conforms with the noise impact implications of Ms Tucker's amendments, but I certainly think that it is worth exploring a suitable site in that region. That is certainly the kind of area which has been suggested by the people from the Canberra International Dragway, so I assume that it is an area or an offer that they could live with.

Mr Speaker, I affirm that it is important for us to be able to negotiate a suitable outcome based on the law of the territory as it has now been clarified by the Supreme Court and to find some basis on which to settle this outstanding matter.

MR QUINLAN (12.10): Mr Speaker, I will not take long. I was very pleased to hear Mr Humphries. I think what I heard was that he virtually agreed with everything in the motion and wanted to have a previous debate in relation to a specific lease. I am rather disappointed that we have to go through the ritual with Mr Humphries nearly every time of creating straw men which are then to be destroyed.

I do not have the benefit of the detail of the judgment brought down in the Supreme Court, but I do not think that it did preclude the government from getting on with the job of sorting out the problem. It may have made some specific references to a lease, but I do not think that there is any mention of a specific lease in Mr Corbell's motion. However, Mr Humphries took up the time of this place effectively arguing with himself, as he does so often. If he keeps up with it, he may well go blind.

I have to agree with the person on a call-back program that the ABC was running today on one other issue who referred to the fact that this government thrives on claims of revenue generation for whatever stunt or event it happens to be fostering. The government uses the most exaggerated figures when it suits; but all of a sudden the figures that are being put forward, apparently unchallenged, at this stage for revenue generation by drag-racing in the ACT are not particularly relevant. I find that rather interesting.

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