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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 4 Hansard (10 April) . . Page.. 884 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

lease would be any longer or any more secure than what the business currently has, and Mrs Dunne should have checked her facts on that issue.

Mrs Cross: Mrs Dunne did.

MR CORBELL: And she is wrong, simply wrong. There is no capacity for a 99-year lease in relation to this land. There may be a capacity for a 15 or 20-year lease. But I think whether you would be able to get finance to build a house on a 15 to 20-year lease is a matter of considerable speculation.

Mr Speaker, what is Mrs Dunne proposing here? What she is proposing is that the government vary the Territory Plan to change the land use from urban open space to broadacre or something else that will permit residential occupation of this site. Flowing from that, she is also asking the government to issue a lease directly to this business-from representations made to me we know of the Swans' circumstances-and potentially do it at less than market value, or at some other discount.

There are very clear processes for the granting of land and those processes are transparent, open and public. What Mrs Dunne is doing here is confusing the leasing issues with the territory planning issues, and she should not be doing that. I would argue the way this issue needs to be handled is that we have to look at suburb of Narrabundah as a whole. We have to do that through the neighbourhood planning process, and we can then take decisions about what this land should be used for.

Because the land is designated under the National Capital Plan as an urban area, it is highly unlikely that you would continue to see this land used for agricultural purposes in the medium to long-term. It is designated under the National Capital Plan as an urban area and under the Territory Plan it is currently public land.

What Mrs Dunne is asking this Assembly to do is agree to her proposal that it should no longer be public land and that it should instead be granted to the lessees so that they can build a residence on it. Mr Speaker, I find that an extraordinary suggestion. If this government were to walk into this Assembly and say, "We're going to take away this public land and give it to this business," I would probably rightly be castigated by those opposite and on the crossbench. But that is exactly what Mrs Dunne is proposing to the Assembly today.

There is no constraint on Animals Afloat being able to continue to run their business. They just cannot live where they keep their animals. They knew that when they entered into their leasing arrangement. They can continue with their current leasing arrangement; they can continue to keep their animals on this land. It is their choice as to whether or not they continue their business if they cannot get a residence on this land. That is their choice. It is not something the territory has to be responding to.

The territory entered into an agreement with these lessees to use the land for a particular purpose. They knew that agreement when they entered into it. They are now asking the territory to change that because their personal circumstances have changed. They can seek other options. My office has had extensive discussions with the Swans. I have met with them once and my staff have spoken with them on numerous occasions. We have sought to pursue a range of other options. I am advised that the previous government

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