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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 07 Hansard (Tuesday, 29 June 2004) . . Page.. 2911 ..

is a reasonable figure for a dragway, when one looks at the study done in late 2001. What is more worrying in relation to the dragway is whether it is ever going to be built. Other parts of the budget say it is dependent on a site, and all sorts of problems are now cropping up in relation to sites.

It was pleasing, to an extent, to see that the minister identified the two preferable sites, block 51 and block 52. The study recommends block 52 as the best site. There are some Commonwealth issues, and I understand from the evidence of the Estimates Committee that they might take several months to be resolved. There is a 39 per cent easement type of arrangement for, or a Commonwealth interest in, that block.

Block 51 was one of the preferred sites for the prison. It is not going to go there now. That has no such impediments—except that if the government was serious about a dragway why did it then go and renew all the 50-year leases in that area? If my memory serves me correctly, the evidence before the committee was that block 51 was renewed for 20 years—which is what all of those leases have happening to them—in April of last year. That was a time when the government did not seem too keen to build a dragway and was desperately trying to renege on whatever commitments it gave before the last election there.

That makes it harder and possibly more expensive because to do this properly the government would need to resume the land. Minister Corbell indicated that the land could be resumed if it was for a public purpose, and it was interesting that he seemed to have a different idea from the Treasurer. When I asked him, he gave some exposition of what “public purpose” meant. He indicated that if the site were to be purchased by the government and effectively remain in government control it would be okay. If it were to be bought and then given to another entity that would take over the lease as such, that would be a problem.

I do not think any of the proponents of the dragway suggest that the government should relinquish ownership of the actual land. What they are proposing is some arrangement with government, be it a trust—the planning minister even used that word—or an arrangement whereby they effectively run the site for the government. After all, the government is putting in $8 million.

On that basis, even on what the government said, there is no terribly good reason why they cannot proceed. They have cost the community a lot more than they needed to. If they had been fair dinkum about a dragway they would not have resumed several of those leases, which were due to expire in December 2005 and which they renewed early. That will cost us more money. I still suspect that some of the reason for that occurring was to look good by putting money in this budget and at the end of the day throwing up their hands and saying, “It’s all too hard; we can’t do this. There are no suitable sites in the territory. Awfully sorry.”

I do not think that is going to wash with the motor sports community. If the government does whatever Mr Corbell suggested it is able to do, whilst it may cost us a little bit more money as a result of basic incompetence and how they went about it, we can still have this much needed motor sports facility. If the government thinks block 51 is the best site and it is easier than block 52 because of Commonwealth considerations, then I would urge the government to go for it.

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