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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 8 Hansard (26 August) . . Page.. 2414 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

I might say that the nature of the debate has gone through two significant changes. What started as a motion about misleading the house changed to a motion about generally mismanaging the system of possible lease tenure change and now, because Mr Moore has defined the issue differently and the Opposition has picked that up, it has become an issue about what it was that we were seeking from the Federal Government and whether we were trying to go behind the back of the Assembly - that is a different question to misleading it - in seeking for the Federal Government or Parliament to do what we had said we wanted to do only through legislation in this place.

I think Mr Moore is correct. The issue is: Was the ACT Government seeking the power to make these changes at some point in the future or was it seeking for the Federal Government to make the changes? I want to put it to the Assembly that it is clear on all the evidence that we were seeking the power to be able to make that change through legislation. To demonstrate that, I have four items of evidence to rebut the four items tabled by Ms McRae.

Mr Berry: You said "will not seek, during the term of this Assembly".

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, I am having a motion of no confidence in me moved and I would ask for a little bit of a chance to put my case before this Assembly without being constantly interrupted by Mr Berry.

MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition and all members of the Assembly will endeavour to listen to Mr Humphries in silence.

MR HUMPHRIES: I thank you, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker. I point to four things to prove that it has always been the intention of the ACT Government only to seek the power to pursue this proposal through change on the floor of the Assembly, not to seek to have the Federal Government do it on our behalf. First of all, that view is consistent with all the statements I have made in this place on this subject. In my response to the Stein report in 1995, I said:

... 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.

That is the benchmark we set. I maintain that there is not a single piece of evidence to show that that benchmark has been gone below or departed from in the Government's actions - not once, nowhere. That view about our proposal was consistent with statements made in the Assembly on 12 December last year. The debate was referred to before and quoted from extensively. When asked about a proposal by the Federal Government pursuant to its election platform in 1996 to alter the basis of leasehold in the ACT, I said:

Mr Speaker, the Federal Government has announced its intention to allow the ACT Legislative Assembly to change the system of land tenure through legislation enacted in this place -

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