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

None . . Page.. 122 ..

a perpetual leasehold system, which is a de facto freehold system. I think that it is probably the same sort of argument that John Gorton had when he removed the land rent and undermined the process of the leasehold system and did much damage to the leasehold system at that time in the early 1970s.

It seems to me that the overriding principles of the leasehold system are that for too long we have been giving a free gift, particularly to developers. One case in point where somebody is not paying 100 per cent betterment would be in relation to the Yowani golf course, where the effect of allowing a development to go ahead without charging 100 per cent betterment means that $1m or $2m - whatever the betterment is on that course - will effectively go to a golfing club. If we are going to make that sort of donation to any particular group, that sort of donation ought to be open, and it ought to be able to be considered, for example, by the Wilderness Society or by the Council on the Ageing. They should be able to put up their hands as well and say, “We ought to be able to line up for that sort of money”. Mr Speaker, I have to be very careful that I do not pre-empt debate on a matter that is already on the notice paper - the matter of betterment. It is difficult to talk about the leasehold system and all the changes without actually touching on betterment.

Mr Speaker, the administration of the leasehold system does require some positive changes. I think the most significant of those changes is in compliance. Throughout Canberra we clearly do have problems with compliance with the leasehold system. One example of those which Mr Humphries is now responsible for is in Faithfull Circuit in Kambah, which many of us are aware of, where somebody runs a business, I would argue, entirely in breach of their lease agreement. When somebody takes a lease in Canberra they have an agreement to act in certain ways, according to the way that lease is framed. It is a contract, and it is the same sort of contract that a commercial landlord has with their own tenants. The irony of the pressure for change to the administration of our leasehold system that comes from some big commercial leaseholders in the ACT is that they do not like having a landlord acting in the way they act. In fact, as a landlord, the ACT acts in a far more gentle way than the vast majority of landlords do. That is an issue that we can discuss further this afternoon in the debate on the matter of public importance.

Mr Speaker, I think that, with the amendment that I have moved, instead of having a silly motion we actually will have a quite sensible motion that will allow for positive change but will also ensure that any moves by the Liberal Party that come from their desire for changes to the leasehold system will not proceed without their having majority support in the Assembly. I think that is an appropriate way to go. With my amendment, this motion changes from being a silly motion to being a quite sensible motion.

MR DE DOMENICO (Minister for Urban Services and Minister for Business, Employment and Tourism) (11.40): Mr Speaker, I think the Government will be prepared to support Mr Moore's amendment, because once again it does make a lot of sense and it does show that commonsense always takes over when silliness goes awry. I do not think Mr Wood really wanted to say that there should be no change at all. Quite obviously, things that happened in this Assembly are still living and breathing, one would hope, and other members of this Assembly should be granted the opportunity to express their views without someone saying, “Let us not change anything in a particular area”.

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