Page 6237 - Week 19 - Tuesday, 17 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
were in government. The fact is that, as a one-time practitioner, over the years I had a constant stream of people coming to me about the requirements put upon them by the Commonwealth to keep up - - -
Mr Kaine: Would you like a copy of the advice we got in government?
MR COLLAERY: You have a good filing system, Mr Kaine. No, I do not think I need to be reminded of what we saw in government. People, particularly those whose homes border on laneways, feel hard done by when their fences are vandalised, or when they fall into disrepair, sometimes through lack of maintenance on one side, and they have to bear the full cost of replacing them. I was minded to move an amendment; but, with the competent help of Parliamentary Counsel, I have realised that there may well be consequential effects throughout the Dividing Fences Act. It is too complex to do today, and I do not propose to do it. Even though I had an amendment drawn, which has, I believe, been circulated, I will not move it.
Briefly - to put the Minister on notice and to require some response from him - I believe that it is unfair in principle when people have met the covenants in their Crown lease, that is, they have fenced their property as is required of us all in the covenants for the first lessee and - - -
Mr Jensen: Some more than others.
MR COLLAERY: Indeed. It is usually the rear fencing. In any case it relates to a fence that has been put up to divide a property and an unleased parcel of Crown land at the property's back or side boundary. What happens, then, is that the fence falls into disrepair, or there is a grass fire, not through any cause of the lessee, and the lessee bears the full cost of replacement. That contrasts with the quite moral practice of the Housing Trust - I am sure the Attorney is nodding gravely - which treats itself as another citizen and pays its share of the fencing. I commend the Housing Trust for that. So, here is an arm of the Government, in one sense, that meets the dividing fences obligation, and there is another arm of the Government, the government at large, which does not do it.
In no way am I referring to newly leased land. In no way am I suggesting that the Government should have to bear any part of the cost of fencing the original subdivisions - and that includes the consolidation that may go on within the city area. I think that that is a part of development, and it is a part of the covenants in the lease. But I believe that the Minister should indicate whether he is going to relax that policy, which I believe is a heavy burden. It is a burden that often falls on pensioners and people who have been in possession for 20 or 30 years. The hardwood fencing falls into disrepair, and there is no contribution from the Government, which often, morally, should bear some responsibility.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .