Page 4697 - Week 15 - Thursday, 21 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
responsible for planning. We also note - and I am sure Mr Kaine does - that the early steps were taken when the first Labor Government was in power. Today Mr Collaery, in his historical dissertation, went back to 1987 and claimed fatherhood of the Bill.
Everybody is claiming ownership of the Bill. I am quite happy about that. It suits me because I think it is a pretty clear indication that the Bill has been well and truly debated. It has been around the traps and, by this time, is fairly substantially a consensus document. I am awaiting some further proposals for amendments from the Residents Rally, and I have noted, although not yet accepted, the amendments that Mr Moore proposes to move. I recognise that some other amendments may be proposed from the floor.
This Bill has the approval of the Assembly, though some criticisms have been voiced. I will address some of the detailed points that members have raised. Mr Kaine expressed some concerns about the provision for renewal of non-residential leases. I would point out that the clause he referred to, clause 171, as tabled, very closely resembles that clause which was developed by the Alliance Government. Specifically, Mr Kaine has raised concerns in relation to paragraphs 171(a), (d), (e) and (g). I recognise not only the contribution of the Alliance Government to the development of clause 171 but also Mr Kaine's remark that his concerns do not reflect merely the ideological differences between the Government and the Liberal Party.
That said, I would address Mr Kaine's concerns in the following way. Paragraph 171(a) contains a 30-year provision. This period provides a decision making buffer in two ways. Firstly, a financier will not be discouraged from advancing funds on a conveyance of a lease because the future of that lease during the term of the security is uncertain. This concern has been raised on many occasions in recent years, and clauses 170 and 171 address that concern. Secondly, paragraph (a) allows the Government to indicate to lessees with some certainty whether a lease will be renewable, or whether it will be required for some government purpose.
Paragraph 171(d) allows the Executive to resist a lease renewal where there is presently a proposal before the Government to vary the Territory Plan and that variation would make the renewal insupportable by reason of the plan. Paragraph 171(e) enables the Government to resist a lease renewal where the lessee has failed to meet obligations referred to in regulations under the legislation, thus negating the right to a further grant. Presently there are no proposed regulations setting out obligations which apply to a lease renewal under paragraph 171(e). If any are proposed, they will be subject to disallowance by the Assembly. Paragraph 171(g) provides for the payment of a determined fee for renewal. Any such fee will be subject to review by the Assembly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .