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

None . . Page.. 120 ..

Again I say that I am not clear what this motion entails. When they say that there should be no change to the administration of commercial leases, are they saying that there should be no changes, or no significant changes, to administrative policy-making within this area; that the Government does not have the right to make any administrative-type changes or significant changes? Are they saying that legislation should not be considered by this Assembly in this respect; that the Government has no right to bring such legislation forward for consideration? Are they saying that we should not devote any drafting resources to preparing legislation for the eyes of the people of this Assembly and the community in this area? You obviously do not know. I do not know either. I think that we are entitled to know exactly what this motion means.

It is a blanket motion that says, “Do nothing in the area of the administration of commercial leases”. I suppose that we are going to see motions like this in all sorts of areas. There is one to do with betterment on the notice paper already. There will presumably be other ones in areas that are sacred cows to those opposite - things like the structure of the public service, the public hospital system or public transport. All of those things presumably are also areas about which the former Government would say, “No change; nothing can change in this area”. I do not think it is appropriate that the matter should be disposed of in such a cavalier manner, in the space of a half-hour or three-quarters of an hour debate this morning. I think that is a gross discourtesy to this community and it is a gross discourtesy to the members of this Assembly who only recently arrived here.

Mr Speaker, my view is this: Any changes of significance to the leasehold system in the Territory should not be introduced through the back door. Indeed, this Government makes a commitment that that will not happen. If we propose to change the leasehold system through an administrative change made at Executive level, we will put that change fairly and squarely - - -

Ms Follett: So, you were thinking about it?

MR HUMPHRIES: No; I am saying “if we were to do so”, Ms Follett. If we were to do so, we would put that change fairly and squarely before this Assembly before any action was taken. Members would be in a position to say, “Yes, we like that” or “No, we do not like that”. If we were going to change matters through a legislative process, of course we would do as any government has to do - we would bring forward a Bill, place it before the Assembly, and the Assembly would have the right to say, “Yes, we will pass this Bill” or “No, we will not pass this Bill”. But to put forward this stupid kind of blanket motion that says, “No change; freeze everything” - a blanket of conservatism thrown over this whole area - is, I think, a silly move indeed.

I think that the Assembly should reject this motion. If members are not inclined to do so, I shall certainly urge that they adjourn this matter to give it more serious thought. There is a serious debate about this area, whether Mr Wood wants to acknowledge it or not. There are strong concerns in the business community that they do not know what the ongoing policy is going to be; that they have seen changes in the last Assembly by the previous Government. You started off calling for full commercial value and then you changed to 10 per cent value. So, it changed under the last Government.

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