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

None . . Page.. 118 ..

The terms of this motion indicate that the ALP has not yet worked out why it was rejected by this community last February. The approach of taking no action in this area, particularly given the massive challenges facing our community in fiscal terms, simply has no appeal to the voters and does not make any sense. Let me analyse, to the best of my ability, exactly what this motion is meant to mean. As a general point, I do not think that the Government supports the view that we should have a debate, on only the second proper sitting day of this Assembly's life, that effectively says that one particular area of administration in this Territory is out of bounds for the next three years. I do not think that is a reasonable proposition to take up in this debate, Mr Speaker.

This is a complex issue, and I think there needs to be public debate, debate on the floor of the Assembly, debate in the committees of this Assembly and debate on legislation, if it is brought forward, before we can decide on what our position as an Assembly should be. We did also go to the community with a clear mandate for change in this area. We have the right to put those changes forward, and I expect those things to be put before the community and the debate to take place in this Assembly on that area. The Government considers that it is an insult to all the groups in this Assembly to seek any ban on further discussion of this matter for the next three years. It is not good for administration of the Territory and it is not good for members of the Assembly who might wish to debate those matters with members of the community.

I also might say that it is a matter of some confusion to me as to exactly what the motion means in respect of the existing policy. I looked back at exactly what was the previous Government's policy in this area. At the 1992 election, the Labor Party policy was that commercial leases should be renewed at full cost. That was your policy at the 1992 election. In other words, you were proposing change to the system. Apparently, it is all right for you but not all right for us. In government, the Labor Party actually adopted a policy of renewal of commercial leases with a premium of 10 per cent of unimproved value. The decision was announced by Mr Wood, the then Minister, on 30 December last year that there should be that new policy - “new” at least in the sense of being different from the ALP’s stated and written policy on which it went to the 1992 election. However, a few short weeks later, the ALP’s election policy made no reference whatsoever to policy on commercial lease renewal.

Mr Wood: We had just done it, for heaven’s sake.

MR HUMPHRIES: But you had not. You made no announcement in your policy and you had a previous written policy which was different from that. So, I do not know exactly what the policy of the Australian Labor Party is. What are we freezing? Are we freezing the full commercial value renewal? Are we freezing the 10 per cent commercial value renewal? What exactly is that policy? I think it is interesting that the motion before us today makes no reference to what ALP policy should be. What exactly are we asked not to change? The terms of the motion comprise a clear admission by Mr Wood that his party's policies are so silly and contradictory that they cannot be referred to. I might add that it took them almost three years to get to the point where they decided that, rather than renew leases at full commercial value, they should be

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