Page 504 - Week 02 - Thursday, 22 February 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
speculation. If you look at the original debates, in that short period of nine years after Federation, you will see that those framers of the basis for the acquisition of land to form this Territory had very much in mind a leasehold system whereby the national community had custodianship of the land.
So we now have the National Capital Planning Authority that comes from a planning Act, and that acknowledges the fact that all land in this Territory still belongs to the Commonwealth in its right, in the realm, in the Crown and that we in this Territory have custodianship of it. It would be extremely difficult to do away with the leasehold system and create freehold, and I do not believe anyone on this side of the house has ever suggested that by any policy.
I agree with our colleague Mr Moore that the leasehold system brings with it those aspirations. I note with interest that our early federation fathers - it was a very misogynous assembly in those days - saw fit to include the fact that the Secret Commissions Act 1905 would apply in the Territory. That was a specific inclusion in the legislation. Clearly, they wanted to make sure that there would not be speculative land dealings which were a feature of our colonial past and which remain, as we know, a feature of Australian life. That is probably a sad reality of advancement and development.
MR SPEAKER: Order, Mr Collaery! I draw your attention to the time remaining for this debate. Please proceed.
MR COLLAERY: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was pleased to note that corruption and criminality in all matters to do with development was recognised by the Leader of the Opposition in her speech. Certainly in nearly eight years of Labor rule in this Territory we did not see a general advancement of the leasehold system despite many pleas by John Langmore, one of the Labor fraternity. There have been constant editorials in the Canberra Times calling for protection of the integrity of the leasehold system and, in response to Mr Whalan, those editorials on several occasions have mentioned the corruption of the leasehold system.
To do justice to Mr Hedley, I simply draw attention to the fact that Mr Whalan read selectively from the record. I am clearly on record, at page 332 of last year's Hansard as saying:
These matters may not be criminal; they probably are not, so my friend across the floor can get up and vouch for this official's honesty. I am not here to attack that official.
The fact is that these dealings raise serious questions about conflict of interest, et cetera. They are legitimate comments. They are supported generally in the community,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .