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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 3 Hansard (23 October) . . Page.. 3996 ..

MRS DUNNE

the time and it captured the imagination of the people in this Assembly. The report of the taskforce was widely and enthusiastically received. The Minister for Planning was then the shadow minister for the environment and he lent his support to the initiatives of the taskforce.

Mr Speaker, in 1997, when the rural taskforce reported, every group in this Assembly supported its recommendations. We had multi-partisan support, even in the face of some resistance from the bureaucracy. Although there was this resistance, the government at that time had a responsibility to put forward a policy. There was a clear policy, which again had the support of all the parties in this place, to support wherever possible the increasing of tenure of rural leases to 99-year leases.

In 1997 we agreed, and it was eventually put into legislation in 1999, that all rural leases in the ACT would be 99 years unless they were in areas of imminent urban development. I was around at the time, Mr Speaker, and I saw the briefs. I know that at the time there were members of the bureaucracy who worked hard to persuade Mr Humphries and the Liberal government that land in the Molonglo area should not be subject to 99-year leases because one day we might want to build something there and that one day we might have to pay compensation to people to move away so that the ACT could have access to their land.

But the Liberal government, with the support of every other grouping in this parliament, decided that it was more just to provide for long-term leases and if the territory ever needed that land for any other purpose, they would have to resume it on just terms, as the Australian Constitution requires. The policy was that land in Molonglo and West Belconnen would be given a 99-year lease and if the territory ever wanted it, they would have to pay for it at some future stage.

It is worth noting, Mr Speaker, that in 1997 and 1999, when the legislation was finally passed, no-one in their wildest imagination would have thought that we would ever need or contemplate resuming land at Coppins Crossing for urban uses. This was the policy that the Liberals took to the 1998 election and this was the policy that was endorsed by the then shadow minister for the environment, Mr Corbell. It was the policy that informed the passing of legislation in 1999.

There were a few problems in its execution, some of which affect the blocks at Weston Creek and Belconnen that we are talking about today, but those difficulties are not relevant to today's debate and I ask people to put those issues aside. Suffice it to say that in 1997, when the policy was formulated and when it was confirmed by legislation, all the rural leases between Weston Creek and Belconnen through Uriarra and Coppins Crossing were designated as 99-year leases. It is immaterial whether or not the lessees took up the offer of a concessional conversion. All those leases were designated 99-year leases.

Then enter the fires, both of 2001 and 2003. Since the fires the community has decided that we should have a look at all our land use policies in fire affected areas. Things have changed and it would be irresponsible if we did not look at our land use policies. Since the fire there has been active discussion about whether some of this land burnt out in 2003 is urban capable.

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