For half a century it was unexceptional that these places should be residences for Canberrans. But given the proximity of Parliament House, the value of the right to occupy this land has increased enormously. There are clearly more worthwhile things to place upon the land than residences.
The residences are built upon leasehold land with a 99-year term and a stipulated purpose of residential. In the original scheme of Canberra, it was envisioned that at any stage, the Federal Government could resume any lease by just paying the leaseholder compensation for the improvements. But since the early 1970s, ground rents for lease-holders have been abandoned and tenure has been closer to freehold, but subject to the purpose clause. A change of use would therefore need a new lease arrangement. Any building work would also need approval by relevant authorities.
The land is administered by the National Capital Authority as part of land identified at self-government as having national elements. Over the past year, there were negotiations between the levels of government to return the section which contains these blocks to ACT administration – largely on the ground that it is residential.
But the election has put that on hold. In the meantime, a developer has come to the National Capital Authority with a proposal to put 34 dwellings on five of the sites. The NCA has already admitted error in allowing a dual occupancy on another of the eight State Circle sites.
The answer to the developer should be an unequivocal No. That the NCA allowed the original dual occupancy without even the minimal level of public notification and consultation that even the territory government would demand indicates its incapacity to deal with national capital in the national interest. That it is even considering the possibility of town-house or unit development on this site confirms that incapacity. Hitherto, many Canberrans looked to the NCA as a guardian of the national interests against the propensity of the territory government to acquiesce to the parochial development demands by the quick-rich-brigade. Apparently no more.
Fortunately, the Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital gets say in the matter. ACT Senator Kate Lundy is a member of it. She has accused the NCA of covering up the development proposal. The NCA denies this, saying that it has only had a preliminary discussion.
The committee will have to keep a close watch on this one. If the NCA cannot look after the national interest and the ACT’s record has been at best mixed, Canberrans and the wider Australian community will look to the committee and the parliament as a whole to ensure that prime land made more valuable by the national investment in national institutions and city infrastructure is not flogged off to the first developer with plan for medium-density housing. The land use on this site should look to the longer term interests of the national capital. If necessary it would be better for the sites to be resumed (with compensation for both improvements and a land element) and used for embassies, public-service offices or relevant commercial activities.