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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (7 September) . . Page.. 3079 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

in this place. The minister can stand up in the in-principle debate and make every accusation he likes, but his record and the perception in the broader community are much different.

These amendments are intended to ensure that the sunset clause remains only until the end of January next year. By that time, we will have resolved, I think once and for all, how change of use charge should work. I extend an offer to the government. I am prepared to sit down with the minister and work through how a good remissions regime should work. That is in marked contrast to the approach the government has taken on change of use charge all the way along.

There is an opportunity here to resolve this issue, to take this issue out of debate in this place. But it means that those on the other side have to accept that leasehold is here to stay and that there will be a return to the community through change of use charge. It is incumbent upon us on this side to recognise that there are circumstances where remission is appropriate. We are prepared to say that. Are the other side prepared to say that leasehold should stay? Are the other side prepared to say they believe that the community should get a return on its land? This is a positive approach from the Labor Party.

Mr Humphries: You did not say that six months ago when you had the numbers. It was a different story six months ago.

MR CORBELL: I should say in response to Mr Humphries that the minister had since early this year to come forward with an alternative proposal after his last proposal was defeated by this place, and he left it until the last sitting period before the sunset clause takes effect to bring his bill in. This is from the government that talks about certainty. This is from the government that talks about not changing the rules every five minutes. They brought this in at the last minute, making it quite difficult for anyone to substantially alter it. There simply was not time.

Mr Smyth: There was not time!

MR CORBELL: Minister, when did you introduce the bill? You introduced it on Tuesday of last week. In this Assembly it is a normal courtesy that you do not debate a bill in a substantive way in the same sitting period as it is introduced, but that is what you have done. Then you say that there has been plenty of time. That is an absolute nonsense.

If you had any sense of showing this place courtesy, you would have introduced the bill in the sitting period previous to this one, and there would have been an opportunity for members to properly examine the bill, to work out ways of amending it if they felt that was appropriate and then to debate it in this sitting period. It is unfortunate that you have not allowed that to be done.

The Labor Party is suggesting a sensible way through this and, as usual, you are going to attempt to bulldoze your way through. I ask members to support these amendments.

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