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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 09 Hansard (Thursday, 19 August 2004) . . Page.. 3903 ..

When that lease is offered, as I said the other day, it needs to be a meaningful lease—a lease that gives the people who take it up, whether it is the current leaseholders or, if they pass it over, someone else, an opportunity to make a go of the block of land. That means that it has to be of sufficient longevity that, if someone wants to go out and borrow money using that lease as security, a bank will take them seriously. As I said in this place the other day, I had discussions with staff in Mr Quinlan’s office who were thinking that, if a lease were given, 99 years would be too long. They were thinking about one for 20 years. I put on the record that 20 years is not long enough, that 20 years almost certainly would prohibit someone from taking out a mortgage. Whilst I do not particularly want to prescribe a period, I think we should be looking at something more substantial.

I do not have a problem with a 99-year lease. We have a means of putting in withdrawal clauses. If you give someone a 99-year lease and you write the lease in the right way, you have to want to take it back, you have to have a really good use for it. Mr Quinlan’s staff said that it was a very valuable block of land as it was in a prime position. Come on! I think that Mr Quinlan’s staff and Mr Quinlan need to visit the block of land. It is a very constrained block of land. It is on the corner of Hindmarsh Drive and the Monaro Highway. It has the potential for an electricity substation being put on it, which would block most of the access and egress to the block. It is very constrained. I cannot see people wanting to build nice suburban villas down by the substation next to the disused velodrome.

I cannot imagine in what alternative universe this block of land would be valuable to anybody other than someone who wanted to run a smallholding broadacre. I think that, on the basis of that, this government should be looking at a generous lease term, not 20 years, and that the government must treat the current leaseholders appropriately and deal with them first in an open and fair way. That is my message to the government. I will be watching this matter very closely to ensure that the government does that. This is not the time or the place to move a substantive motion, but I will be watching it and, if I am back here after the October election and this government is still occupying those benches, I will be ensuring that the families involved are treated appropriately and fairly. That is my commitment to this place. I encourage members to consider the substance of what I have said and to vote against my motion.

MR CORBELL (Minister for Health and Minister for Planning) (10.59): Mr Speaker, the government obviously will be supporting this draft variation and opposing the motion of Mrs Dunne. I note that the Standing Committee on Planning and Environment in its report of August this year recommended that the draft variation proceed. The government obviously agrees with that recommendation and will not be supporting a disallowance of this draft variation this morning.

MS DUNDAS (10.59): I stand to speak on what I hope will be the last chapter of this Assembly’s dealings in relation to this block of land in Narrabundah. As has already been noted, our debates in this place started in April 2002, when this Assembly recommended that a draft variation take place with this block of land so that the current lessees of the land would be able to expand their business, look after their animals and put up some dwellings on that site.

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