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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 10 Hansard (29 August) . . Page.. 3009 ..

MR PRATT (continuing):

Mr Speaker, I am concerned about the separation of the daily maintenance and security of ovals, including the financial management of them, from the Bureau of Sport and Recreation. The bureau is the operational manager of our network of ovals and I believe that it should have retained total control over the disbursement and management of funding. I just raise that as an observation.

Mr Speaker, $250,000 has been allocated in the budget for the general funding of minor new works programs. That is considerably less than the $648,000 allocated under the previous government's plan. We think that that underspending needs to be addressed.

Going on from there: I wish to talk briefly about the facilities improvement program. Funding of $1 million has been allocated across the ACT to a sports facilities improvement program. Given that $370,000 has been allocated to upgrading the Chisholm sports oval, very little is left for the remainder of the facilities across the ACT. I remain concerned about that. We will monitor just how well the remainder of the activities under the FIP are being addressed.

Turning briefly to the Chisholm sports oval upgrade: in estimates I was advised by the department that the upgrade of the oval was generally agreed upon by the community, including agreement about the vexed question of fencing and whether the community would have sufficient access to the oval. I gather from questions I put in estimates that a white picket fence will be constructed and there will be sufficient gates to allow the community access. I congratulate the department, if that is what it is aiming for, but I am still receiving feedback that members of the Chisholm community are still concerned about what this upgrade will mean for them. I assume that the department is absolutely right in what it has advised in estimates. I can only encourage the department to get out and communicate better with the community and advise the community that their needs have not been disrupted.

I was also given an assurance by the department in estimates that it has taken appropriate budgetary and contractual measures to provide ACT taxpayers with a firewall against any detriment being suffered should the two clubs involved in the Chisholm oval project renege on their part in the funding obligation. I do not think that there has been any indication that they will, but there were questions about whether the contractual arrangements had covered that contingency. Mr Speaker, we will be looking at that. Certainly, the plan would indicate that the Chisholm oval project will deliver a very good activity and we are pleased to see that.

I turn briefly now to the Canberra Stadium car parks. As we know, there are upwards of 5,000 car park spaces east, north-east, west, south-west and north-west of Canberra Stadium, immediately west of the AIS. Most of those car parks are simply grass and dirt, but a significant number immediately next to Canberra Stadium are hardstanding car parks exactly where the western option route of the Gungahlin Drive extension is being pushed through. Clearly, there will be a destruction of some of the car park spaces with the pushing through of the western option for the Gungahlin Drive extension.

Mr Speaker, in estimates the department did admit under questioning that 2,000 of the existing 5,000 car park spaces will be lost under the shoving through of the western option. There are no funds available in the budget to build any new structured car park complex. If that is the case, space would need to be found to replace the lost 2,000 car

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