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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 8 Hansard (26 August) . . Page.. 2408 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

to remove the 99 year restriction on the majority of leases in the Territory, the objective being to provide for longer term leases for residential and Aboriginal interests in particular. In other cases, "renewal" would be permitted at any time without effectively creating an estate in excess of 99 years.

It seems to me that this paragraph can be interpreted in two ways. It can be interpreted as seeking that the Federal Government take action to change 999-year leases, and if it is interpreted in that way the point I made is that Mr Humphries must go. If it is interpreted that this is asking for power to allow us to make the decision, then Mr Humphries is acting in a completely valid way. I disagree with him entirely on his attitude to 999-year leases, but that is exactly the same situation as Mr Humphries was in on the Andrews Bill. He disagreed entirely with what the Andrews Bill was about; but he said, as you did, Mr Speaker, that the power should belong with this Assembly, and I am in exactly the same position as that. I disagree entirely, vigorously and ideologically - there I have a difference with the Greens - with 999-year leases. However, the power belongs here in this Assembly.

So how do I then decide whether this should be interpreted in one way or the other? Mrs Carnell tabled a letter that was written today by Minister Warwick Smith. To me, the interesting thing about the letter is that it refers specifically to a discussion on Friday, 27 June 1997. This is a discussion between Mr Humphries and him about leasehold arrangements in the ACT. I draw members' attention to the fact that 27 June was long before the statements that Mr Humphries made to the Property Council on 9 September. It was well and truly before that and, therefore, before Ms McRae introduced the notion of a no-confidence motion in the Minister over this issue. The Minister, in writing, was confirming their discussion before all this became a conflict situation. The letter basically says that we will need to transfer the power. So the Minister, in one sense, is confirming that it is a transfer of power, in accordance with the Liberal Party policy, not an action taken by the Federal Liberal Government to remove 99-year leases.

There is one other issue that I think is interesting in my drawing this to a conclusion for myself, Mr Speaker, and that is that in December 1996, when Mr Humphries answered a question from Mr Berry, he basically reconfirmed his position. He also tabled this letter. It was at about that time that he tabled this letter to confirm what he was saying, namely, that they were seeking a change of power rather than asking the Federal Government to make that change. Mr Speaker, it is this very fine line that it comes down to, this interpretation of this particular paragraph. I want to listen, Mr Speaker, to how Mr Humphries justifies the issues that I have raised, and I want to listen to Ms McRae's speech in reply, to make a final decision. At this stage I have given the reasons why it appears to me that Mr Humphries has actually asked for the power to be transferred to the Assembly rather than asking the Federal Government for 999-year leases. I must say, Mr Speaker, that this is a very serious situation. When I originally came into the Assembly, before I had seen this letter, I thought that it was not as strong a case as has been put here. In fact, it is a very strong case. It comes down to a very fine line. The Minister now has to explain, very clearly, why I should believe that the 999-year lease power was sought rather than 999-year leases, and that is what I am listening for.

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