Page 5644 - Week 17 - Thursday, 5 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR JENSEN: I am sorry, Mr Wood, but that is the best we could do in the circumstances. I hope that you will take it on notice.
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and the Arts and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (12.39): It is not perfect, Mr Deputy Speaker. What Mr Jensen is setting out to do, as I understand it, is lock up every residential lease in perpetuity, pretty well, as a residential lease, precluding the possibility of any change at all.
Mr Jensen: No, I am not doing that at all.
MR WOOD: Well, you seem to be saying that. It is my understanding of what you said and of what is written down here. You indicated that it was not perfect, and I do not think we should be writing into this legislation something that is not perfect. There is provision in the draft Territory Plan for greater usage or a wider range of usage than you like. I am not sure that it is very different from existing provisions. If you have concerns about that, you should address it through modifications to the draft Territory Plan. This is certainly not the place to do it.
MR MOORE (12.40): I believe, Mr Deputy Speaker, that Mr Jensen's intention is appropriate; but, as the amendment is worded, there is a problem. Perhaps we could get around the problem by using the term used in the draft Territory Plan. Therefore, I move the following amendment to Mr Jensen's amendment:
Omit the words "subdivision or development rights", substitute "number of dwellings".
I think that the difficulty that Mr Jensen has identified is one that we should take on board and perhaps that achieves the goal that Mr Jensen wants.
Remember that what we are talking about - I think it is most important - is a lease where the term of the residential lease is to expire within a period of 30 years and the lessee applies to the Executive for the grant of a further residential lease of that land. We are talking about a specific incident. I think that this does not preclude the grant of a lease being a lease that does not permit a change in the purpose for which the land is used or an increase in the number of dwellings.
In other words, it will require somebody to seek a change of purpose and not be able to do it at that time. They will need to seek a change of purpose in the lease, which is a perfectly normal and perfectly reasonable thing to expect. In other words, we are prepared to grant the continuation of the lease as it is - there is no problem about that - but if you want to change the lease you have to go through the normal other procedures that exist. I think that is what Mr Jensen is trying to achieve.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .