Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 14 Hansard (12 December) . . Page.. 4904..
MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (10.45): Mr Speaker, before I speak on this amendment of Mr Moore's, I move:
That standing order 76 be suspended for the remainder of this sitting.
Mr Berry: What is that one?
MR HUMPHRIES: That is the one about new business after 11.00 pm.
Mr Berry: Right. Is that letter coming down?
MR HUMPHRIES: Yes, it is coming down.
Question resolved in the affirmative, with the concurrence of an absolute majority.
MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (10.46): Mr Speaker, I join Mr Whitecross in opposing Mr Moore's amendment. I am not sure that I share the reasoning entirely, but I intend also to oppose it. The thing I am curious about is what Mr Moore's intentions are, albeit there is a very long projection here, as to what should be happening in 150 years' time. Mr Moore says it gives us the chance to be able to consider perpetual leasehold 150 years from now when the present lot of leases have been renewed and we come back for the second expiry of the leases. The question is: What happens then? Mr Moore's suggestion was that that gives us the chance to say we want to go to perpetual leasehold.
Mr Whitecross: It would be a pretty long committee hearing.
MR HUMPHRIES: Yes, let us have a committee hearing into this one; yes, it would be a very long reporting time. Mr Speaker, if we want to move to perpetual leasehold in 150 years' time, the fact that there is a renewal coming up will not make any difference either way. It is perfectly possible to do that at any stage before or after that point, presumably. I think more to the point is what happens if you do not choose to renew it. That is the fundamental problem we have encountered throughout this debate with Mr Moore's view that the leasehold system means that when leases expire there really has to be a real question of whether those leases are renewed.