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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 10 Hansard (Thursday, 26 August 2004) . . Page.. 4387 ..

Another meeting was held at the start of this week, where the lessees’ representative offered to bring the valuer into a meeting with government and defend this valuation; to put all of their cards on the table; and the government would match them. It would seem, however, that there is very little likelihood that the government will either put a significant figure on the table, which would encourage a speedy resolution of the matter, or that the details of the government’s offer and methodology could be open to debate or negotiation.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 pm.

MS TUCKER: To conclude my comments, it has been hard to maintain the belief that government has approached these negotiations with a determination to conclude them promptly and in good faith. There were issues with other leases at the end of last year that were concluded quickly, so I cannot accept that the process would, by necessity, take this long. I find it particularly difficult as I know the need for goodwill and prompt action was acknowledged at the start of this process.

In taking the position I did last year, I have put some of my credibility on the line for these families, as has Mr Corbell, through his office, in my view. We have said, through the negotiations to date, that a fair outcome is one that sits a little outside the usual arrangements, in that the entitlements that the government can, in accepting a surrender, incorporate other provisions or offers as it sees fit. This motion, which I will support, lays it out very clearly.

MS DUNDAS (8.02): This has been, I think, a quite interesting debate following the debates we had in October and November 2003. Tonight the minister has said that we need to apply a consistent approach as we look at rural lessees. I have read through the 2003 debates, and that was the argument we were all putting forward. The original disallowance motion was moved because there was concern that we were not applying a consistent approach. We were taking a few rural leases, pulling them out of the system and putting them in a different basket.

I think that, with this motion tonight, because that disallowance was unsuccessful, we have to take these special cases, look at them in a different light and ask the government—in a quite unusual motion, I will admit—to provide a fair and equitable offer to the families before the caretaker period begins, and work with the property owners to ensure they are able to resume their lives.

These people have been under a great deal of stress, not just through the negotiation of these leases but also for a number of years in relation to the bushfires. They had a great deal to do in preventing the bushfires getting any further, and that work needs to be acknowledged. They have also been under a lot of stress in relation to these leases. If there is some way that, through the Assembly putting this motion on the table, we can help these families to resume their lives and help them to gain a little bit of certainty and get things sorted, then it needs to be supported.

From looking back over the debates that occurred in 2003, there were assurances made. Those debates were about evaluation proceeding promptly, that resolution of disputes will be pursued as articulated in existing leases, and that there would be a reasonable and

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