Page 593 - Week 02 - Thursday, 9 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
are covered by that. As I indicated earlier, there was a concern that motor sport would not necessarily be involved in the development of regulations. There is an undertaking by the bureaucrats that they will be, and I certainly will seek that from the minister. There was also some concern about a licence fee. Especially for smaller motor sports, even a moderate fee of $1,000 a year would be very excessive. I have been advised in the briefing that there is no contemplation of what the fee will be. I suppose it does not apply if Fairbairn Park is not being included in this, but certainly we will watch with interest what the fee is.
Those are the main points I have in relation to the bill itself. We will see how it operates. I do see it as an indication maybe that this government is fair dinkum about a dragway. I certainly hope that is the case and I look forward with interest to seeing whether that happens and also to seeing how this legislation pans out.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (5.39): I am not sure about the wisdom of beginning my contribution to this debate, because I suspect I am going to be interrupted; nonetheless, I will start. Perhaps we can be grateful that the ACT is the last jurisdiction in Australia contemplating enacting laws such as these. When Canberra played host to the V8 supercar race, it was on commonwealth land, so we did not need these dedicated laws; we just had to foot the bill for it. While it was an abject failure in terms of boosting the ACT economy and delivering benefits for Canberra residents, it was a very successful exercise in socialising costs and privatising profits, which, in some circles, is the definition of good government.
This bill presages the coming of yet another fossil fuel fiasco in the form of a government-sponsored dragway. But this latest white elephant will hang around, demanding to be fed, for years to come. And, if anyone thinks it will be satisfied eating peanuts, think again. The dragway’s closest competitor would presumably be the New South Wales Sydney International Dragway, which cost the New South Wales taxpayers $30 million in 2004. In 2005, the operators of that venue celebrated the fact that they were operating at a profit, but neglected to highlight the fact that they went back to the New South Wales government to seek, and received, an additional $3 million. The lesson seems to be that a dragway being next to the largest city in Australia really can be profitable to its operators, but only if it receives regular massive injections of public funding.
The Canberra dragway, if it goes ahead, will draw its customers from a city a tenth of the size of Sydney—unless, of course, Sydney comes to Canberra. From the government’s own research, it seems that the Canberra dragway is highly unlikely to be able to operate at a profit independently from injections of public funding either. I do remain open-minded, but I am becoming very sceptical of the public benefit of funding a dragway.
I mention the dragway now because this bill seems to be designed with the dragway in mind and I am confused by the absence of any mention of the dragway in the Treasurer’s presentation speech. Is this because the dragway has not been approved yet? In fact, the environmental and social impact reports have not even been written yet, so I hope the decision to go ahead with its construction has not been made yet.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .