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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 10 Hansard (28 August) . . Page.. 3417 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

To conclude, there are many details to the claims I have raised today that are too complicated to explain in this MPI, but I know that the Deakin Residents Association has researched this issue thoroughly and can provide documentation from government files to back up its claims. Unfortunately, all this information has come out late in the life of this Assembly and it may be up to the next government to pick up the pieces. Regardless of who this is, may I remind members that when dealing with developers outside the competitive process there is a need to ensure that there is an observable and significant public benefit from these dealings and a proper accounting for public assets. In the case of the Deakin soccer oval, as with many other projects of this Liberal government, attention to detail and a duty of care appear to have been overlooked in the rush to get private sector development happening, regardless of the public cost.

MR SMYTH (Minister for Urban Services, Minister for Business, Tourism and the Arts and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (8.08): Ms Tucker has raised a matter of public importance regarding irregularities in the government's agreement with the Croatia Deakin Soccer Club over the redevelopment of the Deakin soccer oval. This has been of some interest in the Assembly previously. I think much has already been canvassed.

For the information of members, the original proposal developed by the Croatia Deakin Soccer Club involved an upgrade to the oval formalising parking arrangements and construction of 50 to 60 dwellings to the south and west of the soccer pitch. This proposal was entirely within the confines of the club's existing lease on section 36. The Burley Griffin LAPAC was not supportive of that proposal because they considered it to be an over-development of the site. They also expressed concerns about its effect on the local geographical feature known as the anticline and the lack of open space in the area. The LAPAC was, however, supportive of the club's intention to provide a higher quality soccer venue.

In September 1998 the Burley Griffin LAPAC made representations to the territory to the effect that they supported the upgrading of the oval, a return to the community of some open space, and a more moderate level of development. To help facilitate this improved community outcome, the LAPAC suggested the direct sale of the adjoining residential site on block 2 section 33, Deakin. The approach suggested by the LAPAC required the club to surrender its lease on block 5 section 36 and apply for a direct sale of a part of section 36 and the adjoining block 2 section 33. The original block 5 section 36, owned by the club, was subdivided into three parcels. One portion is proposed to be a smaller oval site but maintains its restricted access recreational land use, one other portion is proposed to become urban open space, and the remaining portion is proposed to be residential, and a draft Territory Plan variation has been released for public comment.

Mr Speaker, when parties surrender their lease they have a right, under section 173 of the land act, to be compensated for the improvements on their land for which they have received the government's consent. The territory has records indicating that the substantive improvements were approved. In this case the Australian Valuation Office determined the value of the lessee's improvements to be approximately $220,000.

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