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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 12 Hansard (18 November) . . Page.. 4240 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

the view that they would be disadvantaged by the 99-year leases. They have advised me that they are not interested in purchasing such a lease, although they see the entitlement to apply for such a lease as an asset.

It would seem that the buyout conditions of a 99-year lease, where they have been granted, are onerous for the territory. So, in the interests of the territory, through my office I sought to find a solution that would be acceptable to both sides. With that in mind, I initiated a meeting between the lessees in question and officers from the appropriate government agencies. Interestingly, some of the key sticking points were overcome very quickly. That was a surprise to me and my office, as the government had seemed fairly certain of its view until that time. It supports the view of members of the community that the corporate knowledge and expertise that used to reside in the public service has sadly fallen away and that the officers now, despite their skill and capacity, are really having to make up lost ground.

It is no wonder that there is a lack of trust between community and government. The lessees have always held the view that their 50-year leases, which expire at the end of 2005, would be more generous or fairer in establishing compensation and that one of the values of the lease itself is that it includes an entitlement to another lease. I think it is important to note that these key principles were agreed to by both parties quite quickly. It was agreed at that meeting that, if the lessees were to make an agreement with government, the valuation would have to proceed promptly, that the resolution of disputes would be pursued as articulated in their existing leases, that there would be a reasonable and flexible approach taken to leaving the properties if that is to be the outcome, and that the government would look to accommodate any wishes to remain on the land after settlement if that suited the lessees and if the land itself was not needed for development.

I should add that the lessees do not trust the government to deliver on any commitment that has been made, letters and speeches notwithstanding. However, I am prepared to accept the assurances given to me that the government will deliver on the promises listed above, that a prompt valuation and offer on the property will be made and, all things notwithstanding, if no other need for the properties is established the government recognises the benefit of having the lessees still manage the properties before and after just settlement.

I will hold the government to these undertakings. This is not a simple question. There is the broad interest of the territory to be considered as well as the just treatment of the individual families concerned. I believe we have agreed on an outcome which reasonably meets both these imperatives. I recognise that the families concerned have been under a lot of stress resulting from their experience from the fires, as well as the uncertainty and frustration they have had to manage as they have dealt with government officers. I have come to the view that the ongoing concern of the lessees to have the issue resolved promptly as well as fairly is paramount.

One of the key concerns that I share with the lessees and with the opposition is that matters of great import to vulnerable individuals can be strung out for too long because such a glacial process can sometimes suit government. In this case, if the amendment were to be supported, there would be no greater pressure on government to reach the

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