Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 14 Hansard (12 December) . . Page.. 4905 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

My party's position is very clear. Those residential leases, whatever their legal nomenclature, are in effect as near to freehold in terms of tenure as we are able to create them in the present legal framework. People buy and sell those leases for amounts that reflect permanent ownership of those leases, not merely, for example, the 30 years or the 40 years remaining on a 99-year lease. Those people do so in the confident expectation that when they get to the end of that lease they will have a further lease. Mr Moore obviously does not believe that that should be the case, or at least he does not believe that it should be the case after the renewal coming up. Mr Moore believes that at some point in the future it should be possible for the state, by which I mean the Territory, to be able to take back those leases; to say, "Sorry; your leasehold is up. It is now time for the Government to take back from you that leasehold".

Mr Moore, if you believe that people should be able to have their leases determined because the lease has expired, if not this time then next time, why do you not say so expressly, and why leave it for one generation? Why not let that happen right now? Mr Speaker, the reason is that Mr Moore might actually still be alive, maybe even still in politics, when those first leases start to expire. I can see him going to the electorate and saying, "Vote for me and I will make sure you have to hand your houses in when the leases expire". Mr Moore, you are putting forward the myth that people will have to surrender their leases, or might potentially have to surrender their leases, at the time that those leases expire. That is a myth and it should be debunked. It can be debunked by the process the Government has put forward in its Bill tonight.

Mr Speaker, I support the concept that there have to be tight controls on the way in which land is used in the Territory. We can do that through the leasehold system. That is one appropriate way of doing that. If we retain leases we can exercise controls through those lease purpose clauses. There is no need, however, to have the leases capable of being determined in a real sense, or not renewed at the end of their period. If you have perpetual leases for 999 years the clauses are just as effective in that period as they would be if they were renewed every 99 years or at some shorter period. Mr Speaker, it just does not make any sense to take this course of action.

Mr Moore has a very strange kind of agenda here. He obviously believes that at some point in the future there will be more Michael Moores around. They will be able to say, "Sorry, people. We really have reached the stage where we need your leases. We need your land for the sake of the broader community's better interest, so it is time to hand in those houses. You have had them for 150 years. Do not be greedy, for goodness sake. It is time to hand them in". Mr Speaker, we should reject that. Maybe my great, great, great grandchildren will inherit my little humble abode in Weston which I am now renovating. If they happen to be around then and the lease has expired, I do not want them to have to hand the house in.

MR MOORE (10.51): It is always easy to be cynical, Mr Speaker. One of the issues that come up for discussion at the end of a lease is how to handle the next lease. What I have said here very clearly under my legislation is that, as far as residential leases go, and the same will apply to rural leases, when it comes time to renew those this first time around that is fine. For only an administrative charge they can be renewed. I do not

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .