Page 1448 - Week 04 - Thursday, 26 March 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I might take the remaining time in this MPI just to respond to a couple of the issues that Mr Doszpot raised in his presentation. I must say that it continues to amaze me in this debate that there are suggestions that somehow the government, using taxpayers’ money, should be rewarding the poor behaviour of a developer in not maintaining his asset—that the government should be somehow rewarding that behaviour by directly financing a continuation of that poor behaviour. I do not believe that is an appropriate way forward.
I wanted to send, and I continue to want to send, a very clear message to the owner of that Deakin swimming facility that there is no way that the government will step in to provide funding for him to solve his issue, and the government will hold him to account in relation to his lease and to the territory plan. That is a very clear message, and it needs to be repeated because obviously Mr Doszpot has not absorbed it. But also it is worth noting in the context of this debate that there has been some suggestion that the government would not seek to hold him accountable to his lease and to the territory plan.
Mr Doszpot: You had the opportunity four years ago.
MR BARR: If Mr Doszpot had any understanding of the legal issues around this, he would know that the operator is not in breach of his lease or the territory plan—
Mr Doszpot: He is not in breach; he gave the offer to you—
MR BARR: whilst ever the pool is open. The trigger for government action is if the pool closes. My very strong suggestion to Mr Turco would be to not find himself in breach of his lease and the territory plan; to invest the money that he committed in 2005 to invest in that facility; and to ensure that the not-for-profit operation that currently operate his facility for him are not forced into bankruptcy. The reason that they would and that they are having to contemplate not continuing to operate the pool for him is that he continues to insist on them paying him $14,000 a month in rent, and that he is not waiving the debt that they have accrued because they are unable to continue operating because, as the facility has deteriorated, fewer people are wanting to use the pool. But, ultimately, there is nothing the government can do legally until Mr Turco is in breach of his lease or the territory plan.
Mr Doszpot: If the government had accepted the recommendation of the committee, we would not be in this position.
MR BARR: The government was not in a position to accept the recommendation of the committee for two reasons: one, because the recommendation of the committee went beyond the planning study and the territory plan variation that was being put forward; and, two, there is no legal mechanism for the government to have collected a bond, a performance bond. There is no way that could have been done. The minister made that very clear in 2005. That situation has been known since then. Mr Turco knew that at that time. Deakin Swimming Ltd knew that at that time.
In terms of the longer-term issues, though, it would appear, even though there is some conjecture in the Woden community about whether enclosing Phillip pool would be
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .