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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 10 Hansard (28 August) . . Page.. 3415 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

lease can only be granted to a community organisation that does not hold a club licence under the Liquor Act. The soccer club does have a liquor licence, so it could not get the lease over the oval. The football club, however, has no liquor licence, so the oval lease was put in its name, even though it is a paper organisation controlled by the same directors as the soccer club. To me, this is an unethical manipulation of the land act to gain a concessional lease that the soccer club would not normally have been entitled.

What is even more concerning is that this contrivance was clearly done with the knowledge of officials, and perhaps even assistance. I have asked questions of the Minister for Urban Services about this before and his response was that as long as an organisation complies with the letter of the act and the criteria for granting concessional leases then it is okay. I think this is an abrogation of his responsibility to ensure that the ACT's land assets are managed in the public interest.

As an aside, I suspect that there are many other sporting clubs in the ACT who have concessional leases and liquor licences in breach of the spirit of this part of the land act. I suspect that they have been able to get away with it because most of these leases were granted before self-government and have just carried on without alteration. However, in my investigations I have found that at least one club, the Hockey Centre in Southwell Park, Lyneham, was granted a concessional lease by this government in 1993 when it was expanding its fields at the same time that it had a liquor licence. I call on the minister to investigate this breach of the land act and to review the holding of concessional leases by clubs with liquor licences as the spirit of the land act is obviously not being complied with.

Returning to the Deakin Oval, a number of other concerns have been raised regarding how commitments made by the soccer club in getting the agreement of the government to redevelop the oval have been modified over time to the club's benefit. The redevelopment proposal was discussed with the Burley Griffin LAPAC at an early stage. An important basis for the original LAPAC support of the proposal, which was also mentioned as a positive feature by Mr Humphries when he had responsibility for asset management, was that part of the original oval lease would be developed and maintained as a public park by the club at no expense to the government. In return, the club would be allowed to use the park for training activities. This requirement that the maintenance of the park be the responsibility of the club was subsequently removed, and it appears that the cost to the club of developing the parkland, of at least $200,000, has been balanced out by compensation paid to the club by the government.

At the same time that the club was granted a new concessional lease over the oval for $50 per week, the government gave the club $220,000 as compensation for the club's so-called improvement on that part of the original oval lease that was to become public open space. This included such things as an extension to the existing pavilion, an amenities block, canteen, sheds, fencing and irrigation. I say "so-called" because the club had admitted itself that the infrastructure was in poor condition, no longer needed by the club, and not viable to maintain. The facilities were going to be demolished anyway, so in effect they had no value to the club. It also appears that these structures were built without the prior approval of the government, and, under the conditions of the original lease, compensation was not payable for unapproved structures.

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