Page 1220 - Week 04 - Thursday, 21 March 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Deputy Speaker, this is a retrograde move in terms of the leasehold system. It has been pointed out by many people that it is a retrograde step, and I would urge members of the Assembly to support my amendment.
MR CONNOLLY (5.28): I must say that Mr Moore's argument here is compelling. The purpose of section 11A is to allow variation of purpose. If other provisions in the lease are sought to be changed, it would seem that the surrender and regrant procedure is the more appropriate one. I would be interested to hear the Government's detailed response to Mr Moore. I think he is deserving of a detailed response. In the absence of a detailed response, our inclination would be to support his amendment.
MR JENSEN (5.28): I believe that in my speech I answered those comments that Mr Moore made when I referred to the comments made by Professor Neutze about section 72A of the Real Property Act being used to provide for minor variations. What we are really talking about here is that, in circumstances when surrender and regrant is appropriate, in the past it has not been deemed appropriate to do it for major variations because of the fact that there was no acceptable planning method and process for objections and discussions. Under the old NCDC policy plan variations, it was basically a matter of the NCDC varying the policy plan without a need for public consultation.
Under the new system we have had since self-government, there is a process of discussion and community participation in a variation to a policy plan that would allow for a lease to change. Under those circumstances, because there is a variation allowed by a change in policy plan after a period of public consultation, when all the issues have been raised, it is appropriate, I would suggest, at the time to take the opportunity to upgrade and modernise some of the conditions in the leases, some of which may in fact have been of some age and require modernisation. This allows that to take place. That is why the Government has moved for this process during this interim period until the planning legislation takes effect.
MR MOORE (5.30): This concept of modernising a lease is really a concept of modernising a contract. A lease is a contract between the people of the ACT represented by the Government and the lessee. Under those circumstances, if the contract is to be tampered with or modified we should be going through a much more appropriate procedure. I take Mr Jensen's point about appeal rights and the problems with section 72A. This is an interim piece of legislation that has been brought to this house to resolve some other problems. That was the argument. Mr Jensen said that it was to ensure that there would be no rorts of the leasehold system that would result in lack of revenue to the people
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .