Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Skilled legal advice with
accessible & personal attention

Googong transfer makes Jon Stanhope the Lord of the Rivers

By johnboy - 4 September 2008 22

In the frantic last days before the caretaker period kicks in the Stanhope Government is getting a lot of stuff done.

Today Our Brave Leader has announced that he’s finally secured the ownership of the Googong dam under a 150 year lease.

As part of the deal ACTEW will keep providing water to fuel Queanbeyan’s parasitic growth along our border.

    ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope, NSW Premier Morris Iemma and Federal Minister for Finance and Deregulation Lindsay Tanner jointly confirmed the transfer today.

    “I am delighted to say that the Federal Government, ACT Government and NSW State Government have worked together to rightfully bring control of Googong Dam to the ACT,” Mr Stanhope said. “This historic agreement is crucial to ensuring long-term water security for Canberra, Queanbeyan and our surrounding regions.

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
22 Responses to
Googong transfer makes Jon Stanhope the Lord of the Rivers
Knows Best 10:41 pm 04 Sep 08

The Googong Dam is owned by the Commonwealth on Commonealth owned land in NSW. Leasing entitlements have nothing to do with NSW or ACT law. At least the Agreement now ensures water will be provided for Googoog and Tralee developments in NSW.

Adza 10:23 pm 04 Sep 08

It’s only a lease. The dam is still effectively in NSW, therefore I doubt the 99 year lease thing would apply.

Personally I really don’t think it will make much difference.

captainwhorebags 10:14 pm 04 Sep 08

Pandy: sorry, should have provided a bit of back story.

In the last NSW election, Pru Goward promised her constituents that she would work with the Howard government to pipe water from Googong to Goulburn because she was convinced that Googong was a massive water storage near to overflowing.

When told that Googong was actually around the 40% mark (and only there because water had been pumped into it from the Cotter Catchment) she said “Well Canberra can just cope”. Stupid political point scoring rolled into some Canberra bashing.

RuffnReady 8:07 pm 04 Sep 08

Gotta give a bit of credit to ACTEW and the government over movements on the future of Canberra water. They are buying water from Tantangara (owned by SnowyHydro), and will use the pipeline to Googong to store it there. They are increasing the size of the Cotter. There is evidence of long-term future planning going on here – they see that the droughts are getting worse and that water security for Canberra means new infrastructure and changes to behaviour (thus the water restriction regime and public education campaigns). Actually, gotta say, local water policy is one of the most coherent and long-thinking rafts of policy I’ve seen from a local, state or federal government since free tertiary education!

National water policy, OTOH, is a sham…

🙁

edlang 7:53 pm 04 Sep 08

I have a faint recollection that the reason the ACT had 99 year leases was to encourage turnover of private land… to discourage people building unsightly / ungainly permanent structures? as would befit a planned city.

Pandy 5:50 pm 04 Sep 08

Suck on that Pru.

what?

peterh 5:07 pm 04 Sep 08

Crikey said :

I hope Steve Whan can sleep at night after giving more of the great State of New South Wales to the ACT basket-case territory.

yeah, we only had a naval base before….

captainwhorebags 4:49 pm 04 Sep 08

Suck on that Pru.

Crikey 4:43 pm 04 Sep 08

I hope Steve Whan can sleep at night after giving more of the great State of New South Wales to the ACT basket-case territory.

LG 4:26 pm 04 Sep 08

Perhaps because the ACT isn’t leasing it? Instead a transfer of governing powers / management?

Aurelius 3:57 pm 04 Sep 08

Spectra, my understanding is that it is a restriction not ACT-specific, but in some way tied to the laws that govern leases, which presumably date back to British common law.
Crown land leases in NSW, I understand are 99 years maximum too. That’s why I asked the question – if everything else is maxxed out at 99, why is this 150?

Spectra 3:52 pm 04 Sep 08

Aurellus: Remember – the lease is being issued by the people who make the laws – if there was in fact such a limitation, they have ample power to change it (also, the dam is in NSW, so if it was an ACT-specific restriction, it would not apply anyway). The only exception would be if such a limitation was in the constitution, and I don’t recall seeing it there (though I don’t claim to have a perfect recall of that document…).

Aurelius 3:21 pm 04 Sep 08

I always thought the reason land in the ACT was leased for 99-years was that was the limit within our legal system. (similar to why the British lease of Hong Kong ran out in 1997) So this 150-year lease strikes me as odd.
Any law-talking types out there able to clarify that?

Thumper 2:15 pm 04 Sep 08

Excellent work. It’s been a long time coming.

peterh 2:12 pm 04 Sep 08

does that mean the ACT border has shifted, are we a bit bigger?

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site