Page 1892 - Week 06 - Thursday, 2 May 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The final change I would like to mention is the definition of the word "pensioner". This term has been updated to include people receiving benefits under the Social Security Act 1947 and the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, the Rates and Land Rent (Relief) (Amendment) Bill will rectify some of the anomalies in the principal Act. The changes I have highlighted will enable people eligible for rebates in the ACT to receive them in an efficient and equitable way. I commend the Bill to the Assembly.
MR MOORE (11.16): Mr Speaker, I rise to support the Bill and the benefits that it will bring. I think members have done that quite appropriately and eloquently at this stage. I would like to draw attention, though, to one or two things in the Bill that I think indicate something that we need to become more aware of in the Territory. I refer to page 4, line 26, where it states:
21B. An eligible person who owns the parcel of land that is the person's principal place of residence ...
I think we must become much more aware that in the ACT, under a leasehold system, we do not actually own the land as such. I think the wording, when we are dealing with land, ought more appropriately deal with owning the lease rather than owning the land. On page 5 of the Bill, at line 28, we have this definition:
... the owner or a joint owner of the person's principal place of residence; ...
Well, that is fine, but there is a distinction between that and the land. I do not think it is a serious enough matter in this case to propose an amendment, but I think it is something that we need to be aware of. We have to avoid a snowballing effect towards the freehold system, which would be a great disadvantage to this community rather than the great benefits that the majority of members of this house realise are provided by the leasehold system.
I think it is understood, in common terms, as a court would look at it, that owning a parcel of land means owning the lease, and therefore an amendment is not necessary here. However, the point does remain, and I think it is something that, in drafting, we do need to be careful of. Where this exists in a principal Act, we ought to be looking at varying it accordingly, so that that emphasis is retained and people in the ACT can recognise the great benefits of the leasehold system. The main point of the Bill is another benefit to the community and I congratulate Mr Duby on bringing it to the Assembly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .