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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 10 Hansard (Thursday, 26 August 2004) . . Page.. 4385 ..

a list of improvements for valuers. On 8 March there was a meeting with valuers and the Government Solicitor’s Office regarding the valuation methodology.

On 11 March this year the authority’s valuers indicated that research to determine the valuations would take at least six weeks. The valuations for the two properties is complex, in view of the “timber treatment” issue and trying to compare the recent sales of rural properties in both the ACT and New South Wales, taking into consideration the differing factors between each property. So there was a significant lull while the authority’s valuers did their work.

On 3 June this year the authority’s valuers provided valuations for Mr Coonan and Mr Tully. Then on 27 July Mr Higginson provided a valuation for Mr Coonan and, subsequent to that, there was a meeting with the ACT Government Solicitor to resolve differences in valuations. On 10 August this year there was a further meeting between authority representatives with both valuers—both parties. On 23 August there was another meeting between Mr Higginson, representatives from the Government Solicitor’s Office, the Planning and Land Authority, Ms Tucker’s office and my office.

The government continues to engage in these negotiations in good faith. There has been a consistent round of meetings and discussions. The government remains committed to working in good faith on these complex issues and will continue to do so for as long as it takes to get an agreed outcome which not only protects the interests of Mr Coonan, Mr Tully and Mr Tanner, but also protects the interests of the territory.

MS TUCKER (6.24): We certainly supported this matter being brought on today. Members may recall that it was my vote with the government that defeated the disallowance of a variation to rural leases put by Mrs Dunne in December last year. That disallowance would have ensured that the two rural leaseholders in the Molonglo area of the territory would have regained the right to apply for a 99-year lease. The Greens took the view that the government’s announced intention to develop the Molonglo area in the short to medium term was not consistent with the further issuing of 99-year leases on that land with the windfall gain that would occur when the land was resumed for development.

At the same time, however, we recognised that the lessees were disadvantaged, at the very least, with regard to their reasonable expectations by this change in leasing arrangements and that, given their long residence on this land and their contribution to the community, most recently during two bushfires, it was incumbent on the territory to ensure that the lessees had the option of either renewing their leases when they expired a couple of years later—which would be less than 21 years and so significantly less value than any longer lease—or be offered a reasonable sum to hand over their leases, fully recognising the value of the current leases and the improvements on them, as they argued was their right.

In discussions with the aggrieved leaseholders, one of my advisers offered to broker a discussion with government on the principles determining such a sum. That meeting took place in mid-November last year. At that meeting I understand there was general agreement to explore the surrender of the leases, incorporating compensation for the improvement provision in their existing 50-year leases, with evaluation principles to be

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