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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 14 Hansard (12 December) . . Page.. 4796 ..

MS McRAE (continuing):

We know that, for some, this is seen as a pre-emptory and hurried move; but we know full well that the cause of the move, the disputes and the dissension behind the management of the lease has been going on for a very long time. Whilst we can always be told that just next week the solution is about to be taken, it is not actually the problem that is in court that Mr Humphries is seeking to fix today with this Bill, as we understand it. That is a problem that will still be settled by the court. This is a logical application of lease management in the ACT, for which purposes the Government has every right to resume a lease.

We accept that the Government has a right to determine that a solution has to be found and that the park should be used according to its first lease allocation, as was understood when the lease was first given. That was the wish of the people who live nearby, and the wish of the people of the ACT, and over time it has been subverted and changed. We are therefore accepting this move and supporting the Bill, but with the very strong caveat that the Minister give an explanation, in as full a way as he can, of the reasons for this move having to be taken, which is, I think, unprecedented in the history of the Assembly, at least. The Minister should give us his understanding of some of the issues surrounding this block and the surrounding areas that have been the subject of so much rumour, discussion and innuendo in the time leading up to this change.

MR MOORE (11.41): It is indeed an unusual move, Mr Speaker. The Assembly has before it legislation to acquire a specific piece of land. The Bill is so entitled. That is what it is. The Minister has identified specifically what this legislation is about in its title.

Mr Speaker, we have seen this problem of the ownership of Northbourne Oval boiling and bubbling away for quite a number of years. Before I came into this Assembly there was already a dispute over this issue. That dispute has continued for a long time. It seems to me that some action is necessary to resolve this dispute. It is, to my mind, a shame that we require a specific piece of legislation to be able to resolve it. Has our lease administration in the past been so poor that we have not been able to identify exactly what has been going on with this lease, and exactly who the owners are; and are we not able to acquire the lease for the normal range of reasons?

The answer is self-evident. That is not the case, otherwise I am sure Mr Humphries would not have brought this legislation before the Assembly. I am sure he would have preferred to take administrative action within the current planning and leasehold system if he had been able to. I would be interested in his response as to advice he had in those terms. The situation is that the Assembly is being asked by the Government to take pre-emptory action in order to override the normal agreement in the lease, the normal expectation some people would have about the lease, and to take sides in a dispute over this lease of land.

Mr Speaker, I have been lobbied on this issue, I think since before I came into the Assembly and certainly since I have been here. There has been proposal after proposal for this piece of land. I must say, Mr Speaker, that one of the reasons why I will be supporting this Bill is that the proposals that I have seen again and again have not been about maintaining the oval for its current use, sporting and community use.

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