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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 8 Hansard (26 August) . . Page.. 2394 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

Attempting a no-confidence motion against a member for not having done anything yet is simply outrageous. There is absolutely no question of having misled the Assembly, if that is what it was. Remember Ms McRae, in her lead-up to this motion over the last couple of weeks, seemed to have been suggesting, at least from my understanding of what she was planning to do, that the Minister had misled the Assembly. It seems now that we have a brand-new type of no-confidence motion against a Minister, and that is for his management of the potential extension of tenure of leases in the ACT. That has to be a very tenuous approach.

Let us look at what Mr Humphries actually said. Ms McRae has referred to two comments. The first was:

... one thing that I do think is appropriate is that whatever policy we adopt in this place should be determined for the ACT by the ACT Legislative Assembly, not by somebody else such as the Commonwealth Parliament. I welcome the proposal made in recent days to give the ACT Assembly the power to determine that question.

That is absolutely correct. Nobody could argue with that at all. Mr Speaker, if you remember, for that reason almost everybody in this Assembly opposed the Andrews Bill. We opposed the Andrews Bill simply because it extinguished the right of the Assembly to make laws with regard to euthanasia. We would similarly oppose any move by the Federal Government to extinguish our potential right to set how long leases would be. Decisions allowed to be made by this Assembly are properly made by this Assembly. Those powers should not be taken away by people who do not agree with a decision - for example, the Federal Government.

Secondly, on 28 March Mr Humphries said:

... one of the board of inquiry's central recommendations is to continue with the current system of leasehold, and I have already said publicly that this Government will not seek, during the term of this Assembly, to change the current system of tenure to freehold or perpetual leasehold, notwithstanding our preferred policy to move towards perpetual leasehold.

Can Ms McRae demonstrate to this Assembly where Mr Humphries has, during the term of this Assembly, sought to change the tenure of leases beyond 99 years? Where is it on the notice paper? Where is it in Hansard? Where has Mr Humphries attempted to do that? The fact is that he has not.

Mr Moore: It has to do with the letter that has been written to Mr Smith.

MRS CARNELL: That is all right; I will get to the letter. She cannot demonstrate that, because Mr Humphries has not done so. Ms McRae presumably argues that Mr Humphries has gone behind the back of the Assembly to get the Commonwealth to do that for him. Well, that is wrong too. Mr Humphries has not done that. The Commonwealth Government will legislate to allow the ACT Assembly to make laws, not make them for us.

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