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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 9 Hansard (27 August) . . Page.. 3270 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

Mr Speaker, the area in question is a commercial area. In planning terms, the aim is to promote commercial activity that will provide goods and services to the community in an efficient and competitive manner. Reducing commercial land, either through acquisition or land swap, does not further this outcome, nor does it assist existing commercial operators. Any increases in the commercial density and potential customer numbers would assist in ensuring the future viability of the area.

This motion fails to recognise the possible serious implications of a land swap or acquisition of the site and does not consider the impact that that may ultimately have on traders in the area. Either a land swap or an outright repurchase of the site would raise many issues that I feel the Assembly must consider before deciding on this motion. In particular, I will address first the issue of a land swap.

There is no equivalent land in the area. There is land that could accommodate the development proposed by the lessee on the current site, but it is not equivalent. An alternative site is likely to have a higher value than the one that is to be acquired by the territory. In order to avoid a windfall gain to the lessee if they are not prepared to pay the difference between the alternative site and the Nettlefold Street site, the territory may have to restrict the level of development that the site could otherwise accommodate to match that on the Nettlefold Street site. This would provide a lesser commercial outcome on land able more effectively to handle a larger development. That would be a poor outcome for the overall commercial development of the area and the best use of the territory's unleased land.

Should the Nettlefold Street site be swapped for an alternative site, it needs to be remembered that this would further reduce the opportunities for commercial businesses in the area, as any site that may be swapped would not be sold in an open and competitive manner. It would not only deny other commercial interests but also leave the government open to questions of probity in respect of any deal reached.

Acquisition of the site is likely to be expensive. If the lessee requires a price higher than its market value to reflect some cost or perceived special value, to what level above current market value is the territory prepared to go? If the lessee were not to agree to sell the land back to the territory at market price, it would have to be done through compulsory acquisition.

This raises serious issues about the territory's land release program in general. No purchaser would ever be certain that if they purchased land from the territory they would be able to develop it. The prospect of reacquisition could have a major impact on future land prices as purchasers discount for this risk element.

The cost of compulsory acquisition may be extremely high. Compensation would have to be in just terms and it is unknown what a court may determine is just when the territory has only recently sold the site to the lessee with the prospect that it could be developed.

Mr Speaker, the government of the day, the Liberal government of the day, made a decision to sell this site. They did so based on a comprehensive assessment, which has since been repeated on two separate occasions, to determine the best way of managing trees on the site. It is an act of gross inconsistency for the Liberal Party to claim now that

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