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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 2 Hansard (1 March) . . Page.. 481 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

soccer club and the football club are virtually the same, and the football club's registered address is actually the soccer club building.

The government then made the agreement with the football club last year to give it a new concessional lease over the oval and the grant of adjacent land for residential units. This creation of two clubs by the same people, the Croatia Deakin Football Club, with a concessional lease of the oval, and the Croatia Deakin Soccer Club, which has the liquor licence, seems a very artificial mechanism to get around a requirement in the land act that concessional leases are only to be given to organisations without a liquor licence.

Minister, could you advise whether this issue was investigated when the oval lease was granted to the football club and, if so, whether you believe this to be an acceptable arrangement?

MR SPEAKER: I remind Ms Tucker that questions shall be brief-standing order 117 (a).

Ms Tucker: It was necessary for the question.

MR SPEAKER: I understand that.

MR SMYTH: Mr Speaker, there was a large amount of detail sought in what Ms Tucker

asked. It is not detail that I have to hand. I will have to seek advice from the department.

MS TUCKER: I have a supplementary question on the same issue. Minister, on Tuesday, you tabled a letter from the conservator supposedly giving retrospective consent to the granting of the lease of the oval to the football club. Could you tell us whether you read the letter, because it refers to the wrong block? It refers to block 2 section 33, which is the residential land next to the oval. It should have referred to block 16 section 36. Will you tell the conservator to rewrite the letter?

MR SMYTH: Again, Mr Speaker, I do not have the letter or the facts to hand. I will have to check with the department. I will get back to the member as quickly as I can.


MR HARGREAVES: My question is to the minister for police, given the minister's fondness for quoting figures. On Tuesday in this place, in response to a question from me, the minister said-if he would like to jot down the words it would be helpful to him:

This is the government that put forward $4.2 million to fund Task Force Dilute and Task Force Handbrake...

You said, Minister, that all of the $4.2 million was allocated to task force operations; but, according to page 69 of 2000-01 Budget Paper No 3-if you have it there, I suggest that you look at it-the $4.2 million allocation consisted of $2,090,000 for the redeployment of 29 police officers, $1,590,000 for an additional 15 police officers and $528,000 for the community beat police program. That was for the community beat police program, not a task force.

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