Page 5635 - Week 17 - Thursday, 5 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
unless it is satisfied that the person to whom it is proposed that the lease should be assigned or transferred, the person to whom it is proposed that a sublease should be granted or the person to whom it is proposed that possession of the land should be given, as the case may be, is a person who satisfies the criteria of eligibility specified pursuant to subsection (2) in respect of the class of leases in which the lease is included.".
This is a little more complicated. We are seeking to make sure that organisations and groups granted a lease under section 63 - it is normally given to them only; they are not required to bid for it competitively - are not able to transfer, assign or sublet for a period of five years after the day on which the lease is granted.
The Government have an alternative under this amendment. They can consent to such a transfer; but, if they do give consent, they are required to do certain things. They are required to ensure that this information is made available and that everyone is fully aware that a lease has been assigned to someone under concessional conditions. There may be very good reasons why it should be given under concessional conditions. We do not have a problem with that, provided everything is out in the open and is above board.
I understand that the Government is not going to accept this proposal. I would be interested to hear how the Minister proposes to get around this potential problem of people being given direct grants of lease for a reduced price and then finding within a year or so that they cannot keep it up or that they go broke, whatever the case may be. We end up finding that they are able to get themselves out of trouble by flogging off the lease at a greater price than they paid in the first instance. I think it is appropriate for these subclauses to go in.
MR KAINE (Leader of the Opposition) (12.12): Before the Minister responds, I indicate that the Liberal Party supports this amendment.
MR MOORE (12.12): It is a very interesting and sensible amendment, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think the only question that I would ask is why they have limited it to five years. I think five years is a short time. I am prepared to support it. I think that Mr Jensen has tried not to be over the top about this and has presented what is a very reasonable time, five years. It could easily be argued that a 10-year period for a preclusion like this would be appropriate when there is room for the Executive to move. I think this is very reasonable. It should be seen as a very reasonable amendment - obviously, Mr Kaine has seen it as such - and I would urge the Government to accept it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .