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

None . . Page.. 123 ..

Mr Wood used some nice cliches. He talked about giving away part of our heritage. That sounds pretty good when you hear it for the first time, and one wonders what the Liberal Party is going to do by giving away our heritage.

Mr Wood knows - or he should know - that the Liberal Party had no intention other than to preserve the leasehold system, because it would require Federal legislation to change that. Even if the Liberal Party, in an ideological bent, at one time wanted to change it into a freehold system, Mr Wood, this Assembly could not do it. It would require Federal legislation. So, that is another point that needs to be taken into account. Of course, Mr Humphries is right: Whilst the Liberal Party may, in some ideological frame of mind, wish it to be otherwise, the fact of the matter is that it cannot be. It cannot be, for two reasons: Firstly, because it needs Federal legislation; and, secondly, because we ain't got the numbers in this Assembly either. I look at the Greens when I say that and think, “Yes, you will find, sometimes, that it is all about numbers”. We are not silly; nor do we come up with silly motions like the one before us today.

Mr Wood made all sorts of implications about this being from the Dark Ages, in the sense of saying, “Let us put certainty back into the investment community”. He did not say anything about what the investment implications would be if we were to revert to automatic lease renewal. He did not say anything about what would be the implications for employment with the extra investment coming into the city. He made no mention of that; but he did mention giving away part of our heritage.

Mr Moore has diverging points of view from those of the Liberals on this issue. We have known that, and we continue to acknowledge that; but I am sure that Mr Moore would not be too happy with the policy of 10 per cent of unimproved value that Mr Wood introduced in December last year, when this Assembly was not able to do anything about it. Mr Moore should be given the right to present whatever his views are before this body and let us debate them. Mr Wood's suggestion to do nothing is no surprise. Our experience of Mr Wood when he was a Minister was exactly that - he did nothing. Very few decisions were made when Mr Wood was in power. In fact, many members of this Assembly said that time and again. So, it does not surprise me that Mr Wood comes before us today saying, “Here is a motion that says to do nothing”. Of course it is a silly motion.

Mr Moore's amendment, I think, is a very sensible one. If anybody wants to change any part of the way in which things have operated in this town, let them bring those changes before the Legislative Assembly. We will debate them and take a vote and then that decision will stand. But Mr Wood has come in here on the second day of sitting and said in front of some new members, “Here is a motion that depicts what the Labor Party's attitude has been all along. If it is something that we do not believe in, then we will put forward a motion to have no change”. After all, on 18 February the community demanded change. Perhaps it was not as progressive a change as we on this side of the house would like, but it was a change that the community demanded, Mr Berry. I note you sitting there opposite me. On 18 February they demanded change. On 25 March they demanded change. Change they will have when this Assembly properly debates those issues that need to be debated. I am quite happy to support Mr Moore's amendment.

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