21 August 2024

No more intent, just give us a lease, say in-limbo Majura Valley farmers

| Ian Bushnell
Join the conversation
25
Anne McGrath on the family property Majura House.

Majura Valley farmer Anne McGrath on the family property Majura House, some of which has just been heritage listed. Photo: Elsie Percival.

Majura Valley farmers have called on the ACT Government to get on with offering them 25-year leases and clarify aspects of the proposed arrangements.

Planning Minister Chris Steel wrote to the five split block farmers, who occupy land with both Commonwealth and ACT tenure, offering a breakthrough in the 20-year saga with the intent to provide 25-year leases with no withdrawal clause, which would guarantee the use of the land for the full term of the lease.

At first blush, the farmers cautiously welcomed Mr Steel’s offer, but spokesperson Paul Kier said on Monday after meeting on the weekend that an intent to offer did not amount to much and no timeframe had been provided.

Mr Kier said the farmers also wanted clarity over a proposed restriction on transfers of leases to third parties, in effect preventing any sales.

“Some of us would want to retire at some stage and it just seems very unreasonable,” he said.

READ ALSO ‘Canberra wasn’t always this good’: New book gives you an all-access pass to Canberra’s dining scene

The farmers will respond to Mr Steel and keep the pressure on for a deal before the election in October.

Ms Steel’s letter also suggested that the delay had been with the Commonwealth because the ACT Government was unable to offer any new lease agreements until the land was degazetted from National land and became Territory land, referring to an impasse.

But Mr Kier said the ball was really in the ACT’s court because, in a 12 August letter to Majura House farmer Anne McGrath, Senator Katy Gallagher had reiterated her in-principle support in March 2024 for Defence to begin talks with the ACT Government for disposal of its Majura Valley land.

Senator Gallagher said that Defence had told her then that the ACT was still obtaining internal approvals to begin negotiations.

She had recently urged Chief Minister Andrew Barr to give the matter high priority and update her on the start of talks with Defence.

Mr Kier said the hold-up was clearly with the ACT, not the Commonwealth, and he feared Mr Steel’s offer was “an election grab to keep us quiet”.

He noted that Mr Steel’s offer was almost the same as that proposed by his predecessor, Mick Gentleman, two years ago, which had gone nowhere despite being accepted in writing.

View to the airport from Majura Valley Free Range Eggs

Other farmers and producers in the Majura Valley are also facing uncertainty about their leases. Photo: Fred McGrath Weber.

Ms McGrath said Mr Steel had also inserted more uncertainty into the process by referring in his letter to “liability for contamination and compensation for improvements” in any deal with the Commonwealth.

The uncertainty for the Majura farmers dates back to 2005 when the 99-year lease on Block 52 Majura expired, but the complexity of the land tenure and reluctance of the ACT Government to provide normal 99-year rural leases for land that it may need as the city expands has kept these farmers in limbo and impacted their ability to plan and obtain finance.

Both governments acknowledge the hardship that the situation has imposed on the farmers, but Mr Kier and Ms McGrath said they were no nearer to a solution, despite Mr Steel’s letter.

Mr Kier said farmers had reluctantly accepted two years ago that the ACT Government could not plan beyond 25 years and were prepared to accept that lease length so they could have certainty and develop their business plans.

They hoped that the government would eventually accept the value of agri-tourism in the valley and not want to lose them, instead of seeing a light industrial future for the land.

Ms McGrath, who operates Majura Valley Free Range Eggs and other ventures on her mixed farm, had cautiously welcomed the news, particularly the no-withdrawal clause, but it still wasn’t good enough.

She did receive good news last week with the Heritage listing of Majura House and surrounding land, which would make it harder for her farm to be used for other purposes.

ACT Heritage says the stone cottage and land are a rare surviving example of a mid-19th century worker’s homestead and associated working farm.

“It will put us in a more favourable position,” Ms McGrath said. “It’s given us a bit more security.”

It could also provide a strategy to retain the valley’s rural character, with several other potential heritage sites there as well.

READ ALSO Government’s building quality assurance plan has defects

Mr Steel said in a statement that the next step was to finalise formal negotiations with the Commonwealth to settle the terms and the Commonwealth degazetting and transferring the national land portion of the split blocks to the ACT Government.

“If special legislation is required to issue new leases to the farmers, we will introduce this next term to give effect to the land tenure arrangements,” he said.

Other Majura Valley farmers who aren’t in this situation are coming to the end of their 99-year leases and are facing uncertainty about whether they will be renewed.

Join the conversation

25
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

This situation is an absolute disgrace for the ACT government. I understand that there may be barriers to resolve, but I think 20 years has been enough time to do that. And, yes, I’m ignoring the fact that there was previously a 99 year lease for these spaces which expired in 2005 – I’m unclear why it was OK prior to that but not following expiry.

Leases were first granted in 1912 and there was an expiry in 2004. Thus, there was never a 99 year lease. It seems quite likely there may have been several expiries and re-grants in the interim.

More useless bureaucracy keeping a bunch of clowns employed going to meetings to ascertain sustainable outcomes.

Just get it done for goodness sake. These farmers need certainty

Still absurd that farmland in the ACT is leasehold.

All land is leasehold, why would farmland be different?

It actually makes far more sense for that type of land to have less tenure, which is part of the problem in these specific cases.

It shouldn’t be leasehold due to issues like this. That farm existed before the ACT did if its lease ran out in 2005. They shouldn’t have to fight to renew it because the local clown council hasn’t decided if they want to steal these peoples generational homes just yet or not.

Whitepointer6:53 pm 20 Aug 24

Absolutely spot on Ken M!! Couldn’t have said it better myself.

The now expired leases have existed since 1912 when freehold was terminated by the Commonwealth after creation of the ACT.

Ken M,
No the specific lease (and farm) didn’t exist before the ACT did, the article is misleading as to the history of these blocks. At the formation of the ACT, all land was ceded to the Commonwealth.

The ACT leasehold system has existed on this land since then in various forms and these rural blocks have not had permanent tenure. Part of the issue is that at self government, these blocks were split by the formation of areas of National Land within the ACT. The terms of these rural leases are specifically designed to be able to be resumed easier than other land when needed by the Territory. It’s why the land costs far less to buy and why their rates are also lower.

Absolutely zero to do with “stealing people’s homes”, what you’re saying is that people should be able to buy cheaper land under specific terms, then complain when the terms are enforced.

Whilst the government may offer them new shorter term leases, they are under no compulsion to and it isn’t unfair if they don’t.

The land isn’t freehold, nor is it the same as the urban areas of Canberra.

That’s also a bit misleading, chewy. Those farms existed in the late 1800s. At the formation of the ACT, that land was taken back by the Commonwealth and the families there told they could stay and continue farming under 99 year leases that would just renew every 99 years and it was just a formality. Redrawing the lines and block numbers at various times like with self government doesn’t really change the fact that it is the same farm. I’m not sure where you are getting the idea that they got the land cheap, considering they haven’t changed hands by sale in almost a century.

Some of these farms are owned by families who have been there for several generations. It’s their home and their livelihood. “Oh we might want to build more dogbox apartments there under the flight path one day” is an absolutely garbage reason to be playing this stupid game and damaging these peoples ability to make a living. The apparent lack of care for the heritage of the places just shows an absence of basic decency by the beaurocrats involved.

Ken,
That’s even more misleading, yes there were farms in the area predating the ACT but the formation of the ACT changed the status of all of that land. All private land that became the ACT was purchased by the Commonwealth, so the owners were recompensed for the loss of their freehold land.

The origin of the 99 year leases was also that the leaseholders would pay the Commonwealth rent on the land, which was never fully enforced and removed fully in the 1970’s. This created large benefits to those leaseholders who’s land had increased in value significantly, when the benefit was meant to be captured at least partially by those rental payments.

No one has ever been told renewing these leases was “just a formality”, although I’m sure some people will have heard what they wanted to hear, regarding their security of tenure. The terms of the leases are clear.

With regards to price, I’m saying these specific types of leases are cheaper to purchase and sell because of that lower level of security. Once again, you want them to benefit by giving them additional rights that their lease doesn’t include.

Some of these families may have lived their for generations. So what? Do you also think public housing tenants should be able to stay in government owned properties for generations just because they feel like they have attachment to their dwellings blocks?

The land was always only provided for a set period under certain conditions. The fact that you want to ignore those conditions is irrelevant.

I think the government may well give them an additional 25 year lease but it doesn’t have to, and the land may well be needed by the Territory at a later date, exactly as designed.

You’re still being misleading, chewy. Nobody is benefiting on buying or selling these leases, because they aren’t being bought or sold. You then go on to compare productive farmland with government housing, which is just absurd. While you are pointing it out though, the local government won’t even terminate the lease on somebody earning 200k a year and occupying one, so apparently there is more security in leeching off the public via government housing than there is running a productive farm on leasehold land.

Ken,
Yes they have benefited over many decades, part of the complaints of the current leaseholders predicament being that the uncertainty has prevented them from selling up, which has reduced the supposed value of the land significantly.

It’s also part of their complaints for the proposed new leases that they have included restrictions on transfers. It’s literally written in the article you’re commenting on.

“Productive farmland” is no different to any other land. The fact that you think it is, highlights the hypocrisy I was expecting. Neither these people, nor public housing tenants should have tenure above the agreements that they have freely entered into but both often attempt to play on public sympathies to leverage government decisions.

The government should be far more decisive and direct in enforcing the terms of the agreements or setting up new ones. The long delay is the main issue, the security of tenure isn’t.

The government shouldn’t have the ability to just displace people from land they paid for and have lived on for generations, just because they want to build more crappy apartments on it to enrich their developer and constriction union mates.

Ken M,
Arguing for renters rights and that landlords shouldn’t be able to decide what to do with their own property.

When will the woke madness of bleeding heart lefties like Ken end.

I bet chewy voted yes to the voice as well.

Communist Ken clearly didn’t read the articles on the Voice posted here.

Has he ever got anything right.

“Communism is totally when somebody objects to the government owning all the land”.
-chewy14

LOL

Nice try Comrade but not remotely what I said.

LOL.

Apparently you are confused then, because my objection to leasehold land was the discussion. Not really a surprise though, that somebody who believes government housing and paid for land are comparable at all is confused and unable to follow a discussion.

Ken,
No, if you were simply against the leasehold system in general, you wouldn’t have claimed that the government was deciding whether to steal their homes by enforcing the freely agreed terms of their lease.

You also wouldn’t have claimed that they should have more rights over the land than their lease allowed for just because you think being there a long time or being a farmer means anything.

Not surprising though for someone who thinks this land was “paid for”, when it is and always has been leased under favourable terms.

If the leasehold system didn’t exist or was removed, these people would have to purchase the land off the government at full market rates, which I’m betting you would not be supportive of.

Read the very first post in this thread, before you chimed in with your usual nonsense. The discussion was about my objection to leasehold land. Your delusions have made it about something else in your imagination.

So we should ignore all the things you actually wrote afterwards outlining your position on the issue because you want to pretend those statements don’t exist now.

Laughable.

My position didn’t change at all. I responded to your fantasy stories.

Yes, I agree your position didn’t change Comrade, the comments you wrote are there for all to see.

LOL.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.