Mr ELFERINK - 2000-02-24
Last night in this House we debated and passed the law of property. This has probably been one of the most sweeping and important pieces of legislation that this House has passed in about 10 years. Included in these changes were the modernising of the rules concerning the execution of deeds, abolishing ancient forms of interest in land, creating a presumption in favour of tenancy in common, and permitting third parties to enforce certain contracts.
I was hoping to hear some contribution from the members of the Territory branch of the Australian Labor Party. What is the Chief Minister’s response to their utter silence on these important and sweeping changes?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker,I thank the honourable member for that question. It’s worth a comment because it could pass largely unnoticed. Last night, I brought into this House the Law of Property Bill for passage through this Assembly. The Law of Property Bill combines 800 years of property law and statutes into a modern bill that is in one clear piece of legislation. It modernises the language of about 50 to 60 bills and statutes that have been written and used over time and have come into the common law as part of how we deal with property. It is extremely important legislation in terms of its effect on the average Territorian.
I don’t expect the average Territorian to understand the complexities of the bill, but I can tell you that the reforms that were in that legislation include modernising the rules concerning the execution of deeds, abolishing ancient reforms of interest in land, creating a presumption in favour of tenancy in common, permitting third parties to enforce certain contracts made for their benefit, codifying rules regarding the duty of care to be exercised with creditors and government agencies in selling under security or statutory charge, removing many restrictions concerning the creation of easements and convenants, reforming the laws relating to installment contracts and reforming the law as to the presumptions concerning survivorship in the order of death.
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Mr Speaker! The Attorney-General is simply repeating in a large dose the second reading debate when this bill was introduced. Last night, because of the government gag to the motion that would have made very clear the opposition’s reasons for not participating in the second-reading speech, we were closed off.
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. There is no point of order.
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Mr Speaker! I would ask the Leader of Government Business to withdraw that remark.
Mr SPEAKER: If people would keep their voices at a reasonable level I might hear what is being said.
Mr PALMER: What I called him, Mr Speaker, was a lazy fool. If you find that objectionable, I will withdraw.
Mr SPEAKER: I have in the past ruled that if a member finds a word objectionable I will rule that it be withdrawn. That sort of language is used all too often in this Chamber and has passed without comment. I would rather it didn’t, but that’s the reality. Does the member want it withdrawn?
Mr STIRLING: I asked for it to be withdrawn.
Mr SPEAKER: Will you withdraw, please.
Mr PALMER: I withdraw.
Mr BURKE: Mr Speaker, I would have withdrawn the word ‘fool’ but certainly not ‘lazy’, based on his performance last night in this House, because this was a very important bill. It has been developed over the past 20 years.
From time to time we play petty politics in this House. Yesterday, the opposition was trying to say that because there was somehow a cloud over the Attorney-General they could not deal with this legislation. What should be known to Territorians is that the shadow Attorney-General had not even sought a briefing on this legislation. He had not even sought a briefing on the most complicated piece of legislation to come before this House and, I would suggest, was probably relieved that he could find an excuse not to participate in the debate.
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Mr Speaker! The Attorney-General is not the only office in this Northern Territory by which one would seek information on a bill, and to suggest that I don’t do my own research in my own area is ...
Members interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: … there is no point in going to him for a briefing.
Mr SPEAKER: Please resume your seat. There is no point of order.
Mr BURKE: Mr Speaker, it was unfortunate. I can only apologise to Territorians, and to other members of this House who probably expected some debate on that legislation, who probably expected some interrogation on points regarding changes to easements, and certainly the rights of adjoining property owners to have a say in changes to a particular rezoning application. I can only apologise to members of this House and to Territorians that you have an opposition in the Northern Territory who are so lazy they won’t even participate in the passage of very important legislation.
I was hoping to hear some contribution from the members of the Territory branch of the Australian Labor Party. What is the Chief Minister’s response to their utter silence on these important and sweeping changes?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker,I thank the honourable member for that question. It’s worth a comment because it could pass largely unnoticed. Last night, I brought into this House the Law of Property Bill for passage through this Assembly. The Law of Property Bill combines 800 years of property law and statutes into a modern bill that is in one clear piece of legislation. It modernises the language of about 50 to 60 bills and statutes that have been written and used over time and have come into the common law as part of how we deal with property. It is extremely important legislation in terms of its effect on the average Territorian.
I don’t expect the average Territorian to understand the complexities of the bill, but I can tell you that the reforms that were in that legislation include modernising the rules concerning the execution of deeds, abolishing ancient reforms of interest in land, creating a presumption in favour of tenancy in common, permitting third parties to enforce certain contracts made for their benefit, codifying rules regarding the duty of care to be exercised with creditors and government agencies in selling under security or statutory charge, removing many restrictions concerning the creation of easements and convenants, reforming the laws relating to installment contracts and reforming the law as to the presumptions concerning survivorship in the order of death.
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Mr Speaker! The Attorney-General is simply repeating in a large dose the second reading debate when this bill was introduced. Last night, because of the government gag to the motion that would have made very clear the opposition’s reasons for not participating in the second-reading speech, we were closed off.
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. There is no point of order.
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Mr Speaker! I would ask the Leader of Government Business to withdraw that remark.
Mr SPEAKER: If people would keep their voices at a reasonable level I might hear what is being said.
Mr PALMER: What I called him, Mr Speaker, was a lazy fool. If you find that objectionable, I will withdraw.
Mr SPEAKER: I have in the past ruled that if a member finds a word objectionable I will rule that it be withdrawn. That sort of language is used all too often in this Chamber and has passed without comment. I would rather it didn’t, but that’s the reality. Does the member want it withdrawn?
Mr STIRLING: I asked for it to be withdrawn.
Mr SPEAKER: Will you withdraw, please.
Mr PALMER: I withdraw.
Mr BURKE: Mr Speaker, I would have withdrawn the word ‘fool’ but certainly not ‘lazy’, based on his performance last night in this House, because this was a very important bill. It has been developed over the past 20 years.
From time to time we play petty politics in this House. Yesterday, the opposition was trying to say that because there was somehow a cloud over the Attorney-General they could not deal with this legislation. What should be known to Territorians is that the shadow Attorney-General had not even sought a briefing on this legislation. He had not even sought a briefing on the most complicated piece of legislation to come before this House and, I would suggest, was probably relieved that he could find an excuse not to participate in the debate.
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Mr Speaker! The Attorney-General is not the only office in this Northern Territory by which one would seek information on a bill, and to suggest that I don’t do my own research in my own area is ...
Members interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: … there is no point in going to him for a briefing.
Mr SPEAKER: Please resume your seat. There is no point of order.
Mr BURKE: Mr Speaker, it was unfortunate. I can only apologise to Territorians, and to other members of this House who probably expected some debate on that legislation, who probably expected some interrogation on points regarding changes to easements, and certainly the rights of adjoining property owners to have a say in changes to a particular rezoning application. I can only apologise to members of this House and to Territorians that you have an opposition in the Northern Territory who are so lazy they won’t even participate in the passage of very important legislation.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016