Page 2646 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 24 August 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
LANDS ACQUISITION BILL 1994
Debate resumed from 16 June 1994, on motion by Ms Follett:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
MR CORNWELL (5.03): Madam Speaker, this Bill first came before the Assembly as an exposure draft in September 1993. At that time, the Minister indicated that he would be welcoming comment up until 16 November of that year. So, there has been quite a long time to examine the recommendations, which I have no doubt he received, between November 1993 and now, when the legislation has come before us. I think it is important, however, to remind members of what Mr Wood said in tabling the exposure draft. He pointed out that there was no general legislative mechanism for the acquisition of an interest in Territory land by the Territory since self-government. He then went on to explain why; namely, that self-government removed the ability of the Territory to use the Commonwealth Act to acquire, compulsorily or not, an interest in Territory land. However, he stated that, at the same time, the Land Management Act provided the Territory with the authority to acquire estates in Territory land, subject to the Territory enacting legislation for that purpose.
The Commonwealth's Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 provided that, if laws were made by the Territory with respect to the acquisition of property, it could be done only on just terms. This Bill addresses this requirement and provides four important points that it is worth while enumerating: Firstly, openness in land acquisition; secondly, accountability of decisions; thirdly, statutory compensation provisions; and, fourthly, the expeditious process of an acquisition. It includes appeal rights at two levels - to the Executive and to the Assembly itself - in relation to the decision to acquire the land, while it provides appeal rights to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in respect of the amount of compensation which is to be paid.
Of particular relevance is the Bill's importance to rural lessees. With its passage, the contentious withdrawal clause in rural leases, which currently exists, will no longer be necessary. This clause was inserted to allow the Government to withdraw land from a lease. However, it had the effect of raising doubts about the tenure enjoyed by a rural lessee, to the extent that some financial institutions would not lend money on that rural property. This was an unintended consequence; nevertheless, it caused some difficulty to ACT rural lessees. These lessees will now be able to renegotiate their leases on the passage of this Bill, and I believe that they should be encouraged to do so, because the effect of the renegotiation will remove this rather notorious withdrawal clause. Needless to say, the Rural Lessees Association are pleased with this Bill. I have spoken to them and have received their assurances that they would be happy for it to pass.
The Liberal Party, therefore, supports this legislation; although I rather wish, as perhaps the Government does, too, that we had had the legislation in place years ago. For example, the Paddy's River lease, which was known as block 13, was acquired compulsorily in the 1970s for housing. It has never been used for that purpose, following the decision not to expand Canberra across to the west bank of the Murrumbidgee and further westward. The lease was withdrawn 30 years early, and the lessees were
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .