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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 8 Hansard (26 August) . . Page.. 2397 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

looked at the Federal Government's policy in this area; if she had actually listened to what Mr Humphries had to say and not gone off half-cocked. Ms McRae has wasted the time of this Assembly today. Her actions, Mr Speaker, are a disgrace, and Mr Berry must be very embarrassed.

MS HORODNY (3.11): Mr Speaker, a motion of no confidence in a Minister for misleading the Assembly is a very significant action that should not be treated lightly. The Greens have always said that we will treat all issues - - -

Mr Humphries: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I am not sure that Ms Horodny has caught up with the fact that this is not a motion of no confidence for misleading the Assembly; it is a motion of no confidence as a result of my management of the potential extension of the tenure of leases. If Ms Horodny is talking to a motion about misleading the Assembly, she is talking to the wrong motion.

Mrs Carnell: In other words, it is for his management of something that has not happened.

MR SPEAKER: Are you clear on that, Ms Horodny?

MS HORODNY: I am clear on it, Mr Speaker. A motion of no confidence in a Minister for mismanaging an issue in the Assembly is a very significant action that should not be treated lightly. The Greens have always said that we will treat all issues that come before this Assembly on their merits, and this case is no exception. We have very carefully considered the case made by the ALP and believe that this motion is driven more by political point-scoring than by substance. The debate on this motion has raised two intertwined elements that really need to be separated. They are whether or not the leasehold system should be supported and whether or not Mr Humphries, through his words and actions, has misguided the Assembly.

On the first point, the Greens support the current leasehold system and see no reason why we need to move to 999-year leases. The leasehold system has been so much modified over the years that it virtually operates like a freehold system anyway. A key feature that we want to maintain, however, is the control it provides over the use of leases and subsequently over urban planning and for the collection of betterment taxes on changes of lease purposes. We are concerned that, if the Liberals start playing with the length of leases, then they may also want to make it easier for redevelopment of leases through the widening of lease purposes and, thus, promote land speculation in the ACT, which the leasehold system was set up specifically to stop.

It is instructive to go back to what the Stein report said about leasehold. Stein pointed out that the debate between the supporters of leasehold and the supporters of freehold mirrored simplistic stances which pitted residents against developers. However, the objectives for land tenure which were commonly agreed - such as the desire for more certainty, less complexity, more security, more efficiency, less expense and more transparency and accountability - do not depend on a particular form of land tenure.

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