Page 5627 - Week 17 - Thursday, 5 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: If we have agreed to No. 71 relating to subclause 160(7), could we vote on that now?
MR JENSEN: Yes, I am quite happy to vote on that.
Amendment No. 71 agreed to.
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: We will now deal with amendment No. 72.
MR JENSEN (11.54): If we leave subclause (8) in, it says that "subsection (7)", which we have just amended, "does not apply in relation to a lease granted under paragraph 1(d)". That is a direct grant to an applicant for a lease. It seems to me that that is even more reason why this should apply to the direct grant of a lease. In fact, that is the amendment that we have just made - that a copy of the lease, a statement of the amount, if any, paid for the grant of the lease, and a copy of any agreement collateral to the lease are to be laid before the Assembly within five sitting days after the day on which the lease is granted.
For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Government is prepared to apply to the direct grant of a lease different principles from those it is prepared to apply to all the other issues that are there. The way I read it, it is just incomprehensible that the Government should seek to support the non-tabling of direct grants.
Mr Berry: All right; we heard you the first time.
MR JENSEN: Mr Berry, more of that and I will just keep saying it.
Mr Berry: You said that you would not.
MR JENSEN: Keep it cool. Stop interjecting and we might get on with it. I think it is important and I cannot understand why the Government is not prepared to accept this. I will be very interested to hear what they have to say, as I will be to hear what Mr Kaine has to say.
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and the Arts and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (11.56): Mr Deputy Speaker, we are going to oppose this. I do not need to go into the detail.
MR MOORE (11.56): In an area of leasing where there has been a tremendous amount of criticism, whether fair or not, here is a chance, in terms of open government, simply to provide that the Assembly be informed when a special lease is granted. There is nothing particularly difficult about that. It is really just a matter of being open and providing information. I can understand, although I disagreed, why the schedule was rejected before, and I think that that is not so serious a matter. In this case it is simply a matter of information, of keeping things open and straightforward. To oppose this is to oppose the whole concept of open government with reference to leasing.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .