Page 1095 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 29 May 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
schools, to ensure that the torch relay through the ACT presents a second-to-none opportunity for advancing internationally the recognition of Canberra as a beautiful city, the national capital of Australia and a place to visit.
I had extensive conversations with the president of BOCOG, visited the site of the Olympic stadium and met with the deputy president and discussed some of the issues around the management and administration of the relay, a discussion which was very well received, very cordial and very productive. It was a great honour to be associated with the planning of this very significant event.
Narrabundah Long Stay Caravan Park
DR FOSKEY: My question is also to the Chief Minister and is in regard to the Narrabundah Long Stay Caravan Park and the cost to residents and to the Canberra community of the proposed land swap with Dytin. A year ago tomorrow, Koomarri offered $1.5 million to assist the government in buying back the park. In reply to a question on notice, I understand that Koomarri has returned $750,000 to the government. Can the ACT community expect to receive more funds from Koomarri to counterbalance the significant costs incurred by the territory, and, if not, why not?
MR STANHOPE: I thank Dr Foskey for the question. Negotiations with Dytin continue. They are quite involved; they are perhaps a touch more protracted than I or my officials initially imagined they would be. I might say, without any judgment, that the protracted nature of the discussions has to some extent something to do with the NCA. As you are probably aware, there is a planning overlay which brings into influence the NCA and some of its planning imperatives in relation to this particular site. So there is a further government and a further agency involved in negotiations between the ACT government and Mr Zivko, and the issues are not as simple as they might on the face appear to be. But we are working our way through each of those issues as they arise and I am still hopeful of an outcome.
I think you are probably aware of recent reports which note that the leases or the licences of occupants have been formalised. There is at least one year’s grace in terms of security such as it exists.
In relation to payments by Koomarri, Koomarri did pay, I think, half of the moneys received. I would have to confirm the amount, the quantum, but my understanding is that Koomarri paid half of the quantum of money it received for the sale. The government felt that was appropriate and generous. It needs to be remembered that Koomarri managed that facility for five years. The attitude I adopt to this is that it is quite reasonable for Koomarri, through the retention of some of the proceeds of that sale, to essentially be recompensed for five years of investment in the management of that facility.
We might each have a view about certain aspects of the arrangement and of the nature of its resolution. I am aware of criticisms of some about the matter—perhaps criticisms of almost everybody involved in it at one stage or another. But I believe the response, most particularly by the previous government and the then minister, Mr Smyth, who entered into the deal and created the mess that we were left to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .