Page 1444 - Week 04 - Thursday, 26 March 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
money to reinvest in the pool. As long as they can be kept going, they sort of pay their way but they can’t sustain a substantial capital investment …
Then he goes on to say:
It is that proposition which has led to this variation. This planned variation reflects that notion that some increased development on the site could generate some funding which could be applied to the refurbishment of the pool.
This is from the developer, making a recommendation for helping the community. It demonstrates an intention on the part of the developer to do the right thing, to refurbish the pool.
The recommendation of the committee would have enforced this commitment. It would have provided a guarantee for the government and DSL that they would get something in return for the inconvenience and disruption that such a development brings about—and, of course, protect the community’s asset, the Deakin pool.
This bipartisan recommendation, as we obviously know now, was ignored by the Stanhope Labor government at the time. Deakin Swimming Ltd, a not-for-profit organisation, has been in discussion with the owner of the pool since 2005 and with the minister for sport and recreation, Mr Andrew Barr, since last July, to get this situation fixed. The minister’s office claim they were completely unaware of the situation until last week. However, DSL claim that the minister’s office were certainly made aware of their desperate situation.
The answers were once again finger pointing between two of the minister’s portfolio areas, planning and sport and recreation. The only person who could sort out the red tape, the minister in charge of both these areas, has, until today, refused to do that—refused to sort this out. He has, however, pointed fingers yesterday and today at yet another source. It is the developer. The bottom line is—
Mr Barr: It’s his pool, isn’t it?
MR DOSZPOT: Yes, but if you had enforced what your committee recommended we would not be in this situation. It is commercial acumen, Andrew, nothing else. The bottom line is that this minister’s inability to make decisions is leading rapidly to the loss of a great sporting asset for the community.
I will now turn my attention to some other matters that I hope do not end up the way of the Deakin pool. The Tuggeranong Archery Club have come up with a well thought out and planned proposal to build a multi-use sporting facility in Tuggeranong. I will take this opportunity to urge the government to seriously consider this budget proposal. I know that my colleague Mr Smyth shares my sentiments to commend this proposal to the government. We have done so in writing, but I am pleased to get our support firmly on the record. I know that Ms Burch and Ms Bresnan have lent support to the project and I commend them for that. The facility that is proposed will have the added benefit of disabled toilets, disability access and so on. This will enable not only disabled archers but other disabled athletes and spectators to have access to a world-class facility.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .