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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 10 Hansard (Thursday, 26 August 2004) . . Page.. 4388 ..

flexible approach. It is coming up to a year since those commitments were made. “Prompt” and “flexible” may not be the best words to describe what has been happening, because we do have to have this discussion again.

I support Mrs Dunne’s motion, even though it is quite unusual. I always want to get to the specific detail when looking at specific leases, but I think it is important that we are considering these as special cases, and that we call on the government to make sure there is a fair and equitable offer put to the families so this issue can be resolved as soon as possible.

MRS DUNNE (8.05) in reply: I thank members of this place for their support in this matter and for their indulgence for allowing it to come on in a slightly unusual way. Ms Dundas is right; it is an unusual matter. It was with some regret that I had to move the motion, and that members in this place have had to speak in such terms.

I welcome the comments from Ms Tucker, because I know that she and her staff have taken a very close interest in this matter. We are in this situation because—and this is not in any way to attribute blame—of the steps Ms Tucker and her staff took in November last year. They took a different approach from mine to solving the problem. If it works out, I suspect it will be better than my original approach.

The minister stood here and said that it is unnecessary to move this motion. I think the mere fact that we are here tonight—with the comments that have been made by members—shows that it is indeed a very necessary motion. In October and November last year commitments were made to make substantial progress by February or March of this year. I think members in this place have been very generous in letting this matter go on and give it as much time as possible. But when commitments are made and not kept, I think it is time to draw a line and say, “Enough is enough.”

The minister has given a chronology of things that have happened, but there were inordinate delays at various stages. From time to time there was a huge level of frustration on the part of all concerned. This is no easy matter for members of the community, who have to put these things in the hands of professionals because they feel they cannot make progress on their own account. I think it is unreasonable that we should have come to this stage.

I go back to the point I made when this issue was first debated. The minister said—and it sounded pretty good, “We have to take care of the finances of the territory.” These families are being displaced so this government can build a town centre on their land. If, in the process of doing that building, they cannot make enough money to give these people a decent send-off and let them go about their business elsewhere, there is something fundamentally flawed with the policy proposal put forward.

If a reasonable cost benefit analysis does not allow for a proper payout to rural lessees—not just what we think they deserve, but a real assessment of what it would cost to transfer their businesses somewhere else—then there is something wrong with the policy. If the minister has to be so tight-fisted and concerned about the finances of the territory that he cannot give a just compensation to these people, there is something wrong with the government’s policy of building in the Molonglo Valley.

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