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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 10 Hansard (Thursday, 26 August 2004) . . Page.. 4386 ..

applied to determination and surrender if agreed as set out in section 174 (3) of the Land (Planning and Environment) Act 1991.

There was also an agreement that the lessees would provide, as soon as possible, a list of improvements and that the valuer proposed by government would be available to complete the work as quickly as possible. Discussions at the time articulated a valuation process that included one valuation commissioned by the lessees and two valuations from government. The tone of the discussions implied a fairly open process, conducted in good faith as quickly as possible. It was openly acknowledged at the meeting that the situation for the lessees was, and had been, very difficult and that all parties should make every effort to come to an agreement quickly and positively.

I have to say I am surprised and unhappy that the government has not yet made an offer to the lessees at the end of this Assembly term—nine months later. My office again became involved in the process in February this year, shortly after the lessees had furnished lists of improvements. The government’s valuers then, together, visited the rural leases in early and mid-March. Through a representative the lessees raised concerns with me that they did not have access to the terms of reference given to the valuers and that the process was proving to be less open and transparent than they, and we, had imagined.

There was a follow-up meeting in mid-March between government officers, the lessees’ representative, and advisers from the Minister for Planning and from my office. It was agreed at that meeting that, at the very least, the lessees would be furnished with a figure and a list of improvements that were factored into the government’s valuations and that the lessees could then attach a second “basket” of items for government to consider in the discretion it has in this process, and that these figures would form the basis for negotiation.

A considerable period of time then elapsed before any valuation was completed. I raised the issue again in May, using the opportunity of another similar disallowance debate, in order to pressure the government and its valuers to get on with the job and so provide some reassurance to the lessees that there was some progress being made. After significant email and phone contact between my office, the minister’s office and the lessees’ representative, a figure was shown to the representative in late June. No other information was furnished with that figure. So the government’s two valuations had become one, without the inclusion of any terms of reference, valuation principles or even a list of what was or was not valued.

I understand that legal advice from government was to not disclose any of this information, as no formal applications to surrender the leases had been made and government took the view that if the issue were to end up in the courts the valuation information would be disadvantageous to the territory. That valuation process took about 14 weeks. At the same time, the lessees produced a valuation of the larger property with terms of reference echoing the text of the November agreement, with a full breakdown of the improvements and their values. That document has been made available to my office and I believe it has also been made available to the minister’s office. The valuation was about six times the size of the government’s figure. I understand it is not produced as a starting point for negotiation but is a document that they believe is defensible in court.

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