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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 3 Hansard (8 April) . . Page.. 692 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

He continued to trade from the premises without a lease or a licence and, incidentally, without paying any rent or any other associated costs such as rates and energy charges during that period.

Eventually, in February 1993 the former Government offered Mr Stefos a short-term crown lease over the cafe site, provided he lifted the caveat to enable the TAU lease to be surrendered. TAU was still technically in possession of the site. He accepted that offer, which was for a lease to be issued for the remainder of the term of the original TAU lease. That was a lease from 1993 to 1997, a bit over four years. He also agreed that rent be payable. The amount of the rent was reduced to reflect the very short term nature of the lease and the fact that Mr Stefos was carrying out aspects of the demolition works and other works to make good the cafe site that he wanted to continue to use. Let us be clear. Mr Stefos was always told in absolutely uncertain terms that he had a very short term lease on that site.

Ms McRae: You said "uncertain terms". You mean "certain terms".

MR HUMPHRIES: Thank you. He was told in very certain terms that he had a short-term lease on the site; that he should not have any expectations of having a long-term prospect of running a business on that site. I heard on the news last night Mr Stefos's solicitor describe that as him being given a lease in arm twisting terms - take it or else. The fact is that the former Government took the view - a quite reasonable view, in my opinion - that the site had to be used for some other purpose in the long term and that a short-term lease was all that was appropriate. That was all that was on offer, and it was quite reasonable for Mr Stefos to have understood that when he took the lease.

It took some negotiating, but the lease was eventually granted to him on 17 February 1995. By that stage there was not much more than two years left to run on the lease. He knew that in May 1997 the lease would expire. He was never given any other impression of what was going to happen. You said in your question that he was told earlier this year that the lease would be terminated on 17 May. He knew that long before anyone told him that. You suggested that the reason given was that the building was to be demolished to make way for 10 car parking spaces. Undoubtedly, car parking will be accommodated on part of that site, but there is a much more important reason why that building is necessary now for other purposes. The block on which it is located forms the eastern boundary of block 4, the former GIO Building, which fronts Northbourne Avenue. A development application for a 120-suite hotel complex to be constructed by Civil and Civic and managed by the Holiday Inn organisation has been recently approved by PALM. In order to ensure the viability of this site, there has to be service access from Mort Street. That, unfortunately, has to be directly across block 13, Mr Stefos's site. I have asked for exploration to be done of some alternative route for the access to block 4. Unfortunately, such a route is not possible. The block has to be accessed through block 13, Mr Stefos's site. Therefore, there simply is not an alternative to the removal of the building on block 13.

However, we acknowledge that Mr Stefos has a small business that should be accommodated. The Chief Minister - Mrs Carnell - and I, in discussions with him, have offered some alternative arrangement. The arrangement that has been suggested to him is that he should take up an offer to run his cafe about 100 metres from where he is now,

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