Page 4597 - Week 16 - Tuesday, 27 November 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The way in which this particular lease has been handled, not only before self-government but also during the time of the Follett Government and now under Mr Kaine, is, of course, very questionable. There are questions to be asked that have not been answered appropriately with reference to section 52 in Civic; there is a problem with the lease administration there. That is not all there is about this particular section. I went to search the title on that particular lease and found that there is no lease. I think that there is a broad problem, as far as lease administration goes, when a developer does not have to register the lease. It is totally inadequate. It means that since 1988, for over two years, the developer - or a series of developers - has not had to register this lease. Therefore any change in the lease does not have to be shown to be in the public interest; it does not have to go through the normal procedures under the City Area Leases Ordinance or any of those things. While it is not registered it can actually be negotiated with government.
So there is great vulnerability in the administration of the leasehold system here that really needs to be looked at very carefully and to be readjusted.
There are many examples like this that I could draw attention to. I can tell by the amount of time I have left that I am not going to have a chance to deal with all of them, but I will move on to section 10 and section 37 in Civic. I should clarify for the record, I suppose, that section 52 is the area opposite the Boulevard or opposite the Parkroyal. Section 10 in Civic is the Civic swimming pool. Section 37 is the YMCA site behind the Taxation Office building or the Amdahl building on Constitution Avenue.
Section 37 is once again up for grabs and behind this development is the YMCA. The YMCA, of course, in itself does very good work. But already that particular organisation, which does do good work within the community, has been given $1.4m through the waiving of the 50 per cent betterment levy back well before self-government when that site was developed. The YMCA argue that no benefit will go into the hands of commercial developers but rather will go to the people of Canberra.
Mr Jensen: What has it to do with us? What is the relevance?
MR MOORE: Mr Jensen interjects about relevance.
Mr Jensen: No, I mean relevant to the proposal.
MR MOORE: He implies that this is irrelevant to the proposal. It is particularly relevant because section 10, which is in the hands of the YMCA, is coming up again for development. I would refer Mr Jensen to the work of Professor Max Neutze on the Canberra leasehold system, which can be found as part of the report on the Canberra leasehold system
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .