For Like minded people who like to see-
166 Application to convert lease
(1) Subject to subsections (2) to (4), a lessee may apply to convert (a conversion application)--
(a) a perpetual lease to freehold land; and
(b) a term lease to a perpetual lease or to freehold land.
(2) The lessee of a term lease issued for pastoral purposes may only apply to convert the lease--
(a) to a perpetual lease; and
(b) after 80% of the existing term on the lease has expired, unless in the chief executive's opinion, special circumstances exist.
(3) A lessee of a term lease not issued for pastoral purposes may only apply to convert the lease to freehold land.
(4) A conversion application can not be made for a lease if it contains a reservation that all of the lease land is a future conservation area.
(5) A conversion application may be rejected without consideration under section 167 if--
(a) the applicant has made an earlier conversion application and the application was refused; and
(b) there is no relevant change in circumstances from the earlier application.
(6) In this section--
existing term, of the lease, does not include an extension under section 155A, 155B or 155BA of the term of the lease.-----
I have no idea how many people and how much it has cost - we have a number of staff around the state who deal with applications under the Land Act. Apart from a few new people who were employed to do the inspections to assess the land condition to determine the length of renewal that could be offered, the same number of people would be processing the renewals even if the Delbessie Agreement didn't exist. The extra cost of the extra assessment people wouldn't be that great compared to the overall cost of employing people to process all the Land Act applications. Maybe you could do a Right to Information request and find out. Or get your local member to ask the Minister as a Question on Notice. It will annoy a few public servants who have to try to figure it out. It won't be me providing the answer!
The link to the David Kempton/Herron Todd White document that Greg Blackmore has put up is well worth an intense read. http://www.htw.com.au/Industry_Presentations/david%20kempton%20pres...
Lynette has said, “You can apply to convert it to a Perpetual Lease, however native title will need to be addressed before a Perpetual Lease can issue.”
Lynette has also said, “John and Greg - no one has successfully applied to convert a pastoral holding or term lease for pastoral purposes to a perpetual lease yet (native title is the killer), so no one knows yet what will happen if you then apply to convert the perpetual lease to freehold...”
On careful reading of David Kempton’s article, it would appear that this is a policy decision by the state government not to allow the process in the Native Title Act alone and instead to require an Indigenous Land Use Agreement that can in some practical respects be more difficult to achieve.
"12 The conversion of a term lease to a perpetual lease is a permitted future act pursuant to the Native Title
Act 1993. The NTA provides a notification and objection process 24IC, 241D, 24MD(6B). The State will
not apply these provisions and requires the lessee to obtain the native title parties consent by way of an
It is quite clear the message to John Michelmore and to his mate and everyone else-
YOU would HAVE to have ROCKS in your head or far too mush SPARE money to even consider such a plan.
Of course if your a foreign owner and want it for a coal mine- no worries.
This is a clear agenda to destock the grazing lands and when we have the said "MINISTER" deciding on whether the block is in "good condition"- the lunatics are in charge of the asylum.
Remember that in the year 2012 -parthenium and turkey bust are good and bio diverse and expect an $110000 fine if you tamper with that.
Carbon Farmers of Australia unite- go on the dole -give all your stock away- tell the bank to "come and get it" (they won't)- join just grounds and we can get a party circuit going where we visit each other and see who has the best woody weeds and ferals and who can count the first 10000 roos on one block........
Just been trawling around in there and all is there if you click here-
At a glance - Cost to run the dept this year is $1,053,948,000
Wages costs are $ 505,000,000 so at $100K per person - that makes
5050 staff- most with very sharp and heavy environmental agendas to crawl all over the 50 or so lease renewals in the last 4 years and the 65% that will come up for review in the short term future.
Yes - it is easy to see that being that short staffed that they would have trouble ground truthing such a work load. Considering that they are the WA -DEC equivalent and what happened to Matt and Janet - it is no wonder every cockey left in this country is s*** scared.
Somebody should get it in writting from Newman -just what he intends to do with this (just one dept).
My advice- you can keep your job but we are decentralising you all to the regions where your victims live ha ha!
Your laughs have fallen flat, if you think I'm running scared at the thought of being decentralised. The Land Act administration part of DERM decentralised back in 1991/92 under Goss, so Campbell Newman won't be able to make any changes there - though he might decide to centralise.
You do realise that not everyone who works for DERM in in your small area of interest. The 5050 employees aren't all involved in leasehold renewals or environmental assessments for those renewals. You listed all the links from DERM's website. How many people do you think are involved in Property Titles and Valuations, Water, Indigenous Interests, Mapping and Surveying. None of them have anything to do with lease renewals.
$100,000 per person? I wish I got that much. Most of the people who do the day to day Land Act administration are only making half that or less.
Not to mention that AGfarce with its 22 full time employees gets a separate $9 mill to deliver something or other regarding PMAV's.
I am well aware that 90% of the dept aren't on the leasehold case eg Greg Withers bs Climate Change junket would soak up at least $300 Mill but don't for get that they are all "on call" like Mr Franks from the herbarium to fly out to Charleville and have a cry about someone killing turkey bush and daring to make grass to feed cattle.
OK Lynette -I'm sure you'd be happy living in Birdsville but the 7000 others( seem as how the pay is so bad!) might have different views.
I won't have to move - my role was decentralised back in 1991/1992. We don't have an office in Birdsville. There used to be one in Quilpie, but when we lost Mines from our departmental structure we lost that one. We used to have one in Cunnamulla too, until the incumbent became too sick with a brain tumour to continue, and they did away with the position and closed the office when he retired due to ill-health.
I've no idea what Agfarce are supposed to be doing, but I agree that it would appear to be a complete waste of money.
Anyway, I have high hopes of a major shake up of the department and the legislation it administers if Campbell gets in. A few little fiefdoms that have been created over the years will be on shaky ground.
It sounds like the entire DERM department needs a good shake-up if not dismissing them all and bringing in new staff that actually know how to do the job properly.
What a ridiculous statement. You can't replace the entire workforce of a department and expect anything to get done better. The touchy feely, tree hugging, areas of the department are the only ones that need the shake up. And they are only a small part. I think Campbell has them in his sights....
I was trying to suggest that the whole landmass west of the sea board will be vacant pretty soon if this piosonous socialist/green mindset that is being sown in our schools does not get nipped in the bud VERY soon.
The only thing left will be feral animals and weeds and fly in fly out camps. I'm sure a lot reading this comment would think- here's that bloody old pessimist going on again. I just came upon the head teacher from the Riverina - the You tube that Dale posted and - boy oh boy when you think that his area is Mayfair and Park Lane and out here we are the purple squats (Whitechapel)- is it any wonder that people are loosing hope and taking their own lives????
Link to youtube in the discussion, Talking Turkey, But Not About the Barrages by Jennifer Marohasy
Lynette you have stated this:
I am not finished with the Trustee Lease even if you are.
Please see the attachment. The document had to be edited to protect the current owners Privacy under the relevant Commonwealth legislation. This Lease is current and it clearly states the Tenancy is TRUSTEE, and it replaced a Pastoral Holding under the previous Act.
Please note the Conditions, all the Conditions but in particular A61 (12); L108.
“A61 (12) No compensation for improvements or development work is payable by the State at the forfeiture, surrender or expiry of the lease ……”
“L108 The lessee must not effect any further structural improvements without the consent of the Minister…..”
It’s really immaterial what you and your DERM people call these leases they are all the same and I have reviewed several which have been issued under the 1994 Act.
Obviously they cant be converted so they are worthless.
All the old QLD leases (under the 1910 – 1966 Act) I have seen carry forward the Conditions of the previous Leases, which particularize all the Improvements, in the Reservations and all contain a clause …“The lessee must during the whole term of the lease, to the satisfaction of the Minister…, maintain all existing improvements on the leased land in a good and substantial state of repair.”
It’s the same in the current lease see L110 in the attachment. So therefore a lessee who does not …, maintain all existing improvements on the leased land in a good and substantial state of repair is in breach of s 213 (4) of the Land Act 1994 which says: “213 Obligation to perform conditions - (4) To remove any doubt, it is declared that if no action is taken on a breach of condition of the tenure, it is not a waiver of, authorisation of or excuse for the breach.”
And, s 214 (2) (a) (ii) of the Land Act 1994 which says: “214 Minister's power to give remedial action notice - (2) For subsection (1)(a) a ground for giving the notice is that— (a) the Minister is satisfied the lessee or licensee is—
(ii) breaching a condition of the lease or licence, other than a condition that there must be a land management agreement for the lease; or”
The acceptable standard would be either in the mind of the Minister or the CEO of DERM, would it not? After all they are the Landlords. However, I would have thought that abandoned homesteads with kangaroo $hit throughout them; fences 100 years old not maintained stockproof; dams with fences, windmills tanks and troughs abandoned with cattle walking into the dam; bores caved in, not pumping; yards crumbling into the ground replaced by portable panels (which are not a fixture), that form part of the Conditions of Lease, surely could not even in DERM’s terms be satisfactory to satisfy the Lease Condition …“The lessee must during the whole term of the lease, to the satisfaction of the Minister…, maintain all existing improvements on the leased land in a good and substantial state of repair.”
Leases are not Tenure and should not be described as such; as quoted by Sir William Blackstone: Vol. 2, Commentaries on the Laws of England (1766) page 89
“We have before remarked, and endeavored to assign the reason of, the inferiority in which the law places an estate for years, when compared with an estate for life, or an inheritance: observing, that an estate for life, even it bepur auter vie [for another’s life], is a freehold; but that an estate for a thousand years is only a chattel, and reckoned part of the personal estate.”