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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 8 Hansard (26 August) . . Page.. 2418 ..

Ms McRae: Why would we? We have always said no.

MR HUMPHRIES: Because there is an election coming up, Ms McRae, and it is perfectly open for the Legislative Assembly to consider this issue, perhaps with a different membership, next year. You might equally ask why the Legislative Assembly should ask for the power to legislate in respect of euthanasia when we have already voted no to euthanasia legislation as well. We all believe collectively that the Assembly ought to have that power. Again, the comments I made on 9 July are consistent with what I was saying all along about this matter.

There is one last ground of consistency I will refer to, and that is my disposition towards accountability on the floor of this place. I have always gone out of my way to make reference in this place, publicly and repeatedly, to my view that Ministers in this place are accountable to this Assembly. As I have said before many times, we are well aware that as a minority government we are at the mercy of the Legislative Assembly; that we will dance to the tune that the Assembly plays. If the Assembly puts us on a short leash, then we stay on that short leash.

If I were to creep out and create 999-year leases by getting the Federal Government to do it for us in a flash and I were to say, "They have done it; we cannot do anything about it", I know what the consequences in this place would be for me as a Minister. I know what the consequences would probably be for the entire Government if we did that, knowing what we do know about the Legislative Assembly's views on this matter. That is why we have consistently always done one thing, pursuant to our commitments, and that is to bring the power back to the Legislative Assembly.

There is one other ground of consistency to which I want to point to prove my case. Members opposite are saying that we were working towards the creation of 999-year leases by an Act of Federal fiat that overrode the ACT Legislative Assembly's interest, but that is not even consistent with what the Federal Government has promised to do. Not only would we be breaking a promise on the floor of this place; the Federal Government would be breaking a promise it made to the Australian community at the last election.

Mr Corbell: But is it a core promise or not a core promise?

MR HUMPHRIES: That is a good question. I do not know, but I will read out what the Federal policy produced in February 1996 said about the ACT:

The Coalition supports the conversion of A.C.T. leases to leases in perpetuity (999 years) and believes that future leases should be issued on that basis.

The Coalition does, however, recognise that a decision to change the nature of A.C.T. leases should properly belong with the Territory Assembly and government.

That is the evidence.

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