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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 1 Hansard (16 February) . . Page.. 217 ..

MR CORBELL (5.22): Mr Speaker, it is very disappointing the Government has decided to adjourn the Assembly at this hour, considering that there is other legislation that could be dealt with. However, I understand that it is the wish of the majority of members to do that, so I will not waste any more time on it.

Mr Speaker, today is a very important day in the planning debate in the ACT. We have seen two very important developments today. I would like to reflect on those briefly in the adjournment debate this evening. The first is a decision taken in another place today, in the Senate, in relation to legislation which would have enabled this place to decide on whether or not to provide for 999-year leases. I am very pleased to be able to report to the Assembly that the Senate rejected the Federal Liberal Government's legislation that would have enabled the provision of 999-year leases in the ACT.

Government members: Shame!

MR CORBELL: I notice that the cries of shame come only from those on the other side of the house. It is only the Liberal Party that has been pushing for this legislation. I have not heard a great outcry demanding 999-year leases. I have not heard a great push for 999-year leases overwhelming us in this place. Why? Because the leasehold system works. If this legislation had been passed, we would have seen the absurd situation of this Government attempting to skirt their way around the constitutional requirement for leasehold in the Australian Capital Territory. That is what this legislation in the Federal Parliament would have enabled here in the ACT.

The leasehold system works well. The leasehold system protects the public interest. The leasehold system ensures that there is a return from the value of the land to the community. What the Liberals wanted to do with this legislation, if it had gone ahead, would have allowed an enormous windfall gain. Someone holding a 30-, 50-, 60- or 99-year lease, particularly a commercial lease, would have been able to renew their lease at a token fee virtually in perpetuity. No regard would have been had for the potential value of the land in the future. No regard would have been had for protecting the public interest and the return on the asset to the people of Canberra. It would simply have been a renewal, effectively in perpetuity, for a set amount. Mr Speaker, that would not protect the public interest, and I am very pleased to hear that the Labor Party and the Democrats in the Senate rejected the legislation.

So strident were the Liberals in the Federal Parliament about it today that they could manage only one speaker in favour of the legislation, the Minister responsible. No-one else rose to their feet and argued the case, despite the fact that there were a number of speakers from the Opposition and the Democrats. The Liberal Government could manage only one speaker in favour of that legislation today. Perhaps that says a lot about how they really felt about it. Perhaps they felt they were just trying to do a deal for their mates here in the Assembly. That is one good win today for planning in Canberra.

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