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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Wednesday, 31 March 2004) . . Page.. 1417 ..

think we have included $2½ million. So we are talking roughly $4 million altogether for the repair of rural fences. That is the broad picture.

Many of the fences that will be repaired as a result of this funding are fences for which the territory has no responsibility. That goes to the point of the letter and the desire of the ACT government to regularise the position in relation to fence ownership on rural leases. At the moment, across the board the position is disparate. Some lessees, through their leases, have responsibility for a range of fences, which their neighbours do not. It goes to the question of when the lease was signed and what the terms of the lease are.

This has happened historically. It has happened over the past 50 years. It has happened as a result of the decision the previous government took to move to 99-year leases. Subsequent to the decision to move to 99-year leases, the agency responsible for the administration of rural leases was not as diligent as it might have been in relation to ownership of and responsibility for fences—post the move to 99-year leases. The position on ownership of and responsibility for rural leases is inconsistent between lease and lease. That is undesirable and essentially unfair and inequitable.

There has been significant damage to rural fences. The government has moved generously to seek to repair that damage. We are providing $4 million, and that $4 million will be committed to the repair of fences for which in some instances the ACT government has no responsibility. We are doing it as a gesture of support for rural lessees.

Mrs Dunne: They do not feel very supported.

MR STANHOPE: Mrs Dunne says that rural lessees do not feel supported by our $4 million commitment to rural lessees through the repair of their fences—in many instances fences for which the government has no responsibility but for which we have nevertheless agreed to contribute and, in many instances, not just contribute but meet the full cost.

We are taking the responsibility, as any responsible government department would, to seek to regularise the position on ownership and responsibility for rural fences to ensure that the issues we currently face can be addressed into the future. I believe that the position we have taken is perfectly reasonable, and so do the vast majority of lessees.

MR CORNWELL: Mr Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Chief Minister, why has it taken so long—14 or 15 months after the fire? Allowing that because of this delay some of the lessees are now doing the repairs themselves, will they be compensated for the work that they have done that the government has not?

MR STANHOPE: You touch on one of the difficulties we faced. Some rural lessees had insurance. Some rural lessees were responsible. Some rural lessees insured their fences. Some were not so much irresponsible but did not insure their fences or their infrastructure. Their infrastructure was destroyed, and they now face a difficulty, as do 500 urban residents who lost their homes—and many other residents who were severely affected by the fire.

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