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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 4 Hansard (10 April) . . Page.. 887 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

I do not believe that this proposal to vary the Territory Plan is giving Animals Afloat an unfair advantage or a subsidy. For me it is a recognition of their prior occupation of this area as one of the early ACT farming families. It is just allowing them to effectively use this block for agricultural activities for which this area has long been used. Their situation is very similar to the situation relating to people who held short-term rural leases in the ACT that we dealt with in the last Assembly. The Assembly agreed to grant long-term leases to these people in recognition of the fact that agricultural activity was a legitimate land use in the ACT, and that such rural leaseholders needed stability in their leasing arrangements so that they could plan and finance their rural activities.

Mr Corbell said that he felt this was an inconsistent position to be taking. However, this is consistent with the position that was taken by this Assembly on our rural landholders. Animals Afloat are in the same situation. They cannot plan for the development of their business because of the uncertainty over this lease. In fact, they have now had to put their business on hold because their situation is untenable.

It is interesting to me that this government is prepared to give lots of assistance to big business in this town but it is not prepared to help this home-grown small business that gives much joy and educational opportunities to many children. The business may not be very high tech, but it is important that children are made aware of the connection to the land, and to the agricultural activities that sustain them.

I understand that Ms Murray and Mr Swan are not asking for a handout from the government. As I understand it, they are not asking even for a 99-year lease. They are more interested in 20 to 40-year leases, which are in the area already. They are prepared to pay any government fees and charges that may arise from changing the allowable use of the land.

Mrs Dunne said she received a letter. I have also received a letter from the Old Narrabundah Community Council which advises that they are sympathetic to the proposed change because of the value of the educational facilities to the whole Canberra community. They offer support in principle. They note that the use of this land for agricultural activities will not have an impact on development of Narrabundah.

Mr Corbell also said that he felt this should be part of a neighbourhood plan. However, this land is on the edge of the suburb and it has not been part of any urban infill plans-and this is the reason neighbourhood plans were introduced in the first place.

As I said, I support this motion but I have one qualification. I think Mrs Dunne has gone too far in requesting that the land be rezoned as broadacre. The broadacre zoning allows a very wide range of land uses which I do not think are necessarily appropriate for this block. My amendment make clear that this block should be used for agricultural activities, and this is what the block has been used for for many years. I think this motion today is really about fixing up an anomaly in the plan. It will allow the farming history of this area to be retained; it will recognise that the Murray family have a prior right to this land; and it will allow a valuable educational business to be maintained.

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