Page 4191 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 23 October 1991

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

---

raises real questions about whether it was written in there simply to give the Government a lever that it can use at any future time where it considers that it may not want to extend a lease.

Subclause 171(e) is the same. It says:

Where ...

(e) any prescribed requirements for the grant of the further lease applied for are satisfied;

What prescribed requirements? Why are there going to be prescribed requirements for the grant of a further particular lease? They are matters that leave the whole intent of the Bill open.

Debate interrupted.

ADJOURNMENT

MR SPEAKER: Order! It being 4.30 pm, I propose the question:

That the Assembly do now adjourn.

Mr Berry: I require the question to be put forthwith without debate.

Question resolved in the negative.

LAND (PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT) BILL 1991

[COGNATE MOTION, BILL AND REPORT:

PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
HERITAGE OBJECTS BILL 1991
PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE AND CONSERVATION, HERITAGE AND ENVIRONMENT - STANDING COMMITTEES - JOINT REPORT ON PLANNING LEGISLATION]

Debate resumed.

MR KAINE: What these provisions do, Mr Speaker, is take out of this Bill the very certainty that is provided everywhere else in it. When you go through the Bill, as I said before, it provides for certainty of process and certainty of outcome, except for these two subprovisions that relate to commercial leases and that must raise in the mind of any commercial lessee just what the Government has in its mind when it puts in these two fairly vaguely described prescriptions. This removes the very certainty that the Bill elsewhere provides for.

---

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .