7 October 1993 ASSEMBLY 1019
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
LAND (FURTHER AMENDMENT) BILL Thursday, 7 October 1993 ASSEMBLY 1019 was being exceedingly ill mannered. I am entitled to Mr DOLUS (Richmond) - I also suggest that the make that point, and it stands. Bill be withdrawn. As the shadow Treasurer stated, the opposition does not oppose the objectives of the The Minister has taken unto himself the divine right Bill. It understands the necessity for the Bill, but it to resolve those issues. Nowhere in public policy has a number of concerns about whether the legal making is that considered to be appropriate. The rights of the Melbourne Central walkway could Minister has also taken unto himself - the language create a number of issues that Parliament may have he uses in his second-reading speech is particularly to deal with at some time in the future. interesting - the right to get rid of compensation claims. There is no provision for members who feel Has the Minister for Finance received advice from aggrieved or injured and whose interests have been his colleague, the Minister for Planning, about the set aside or adversely affected to pick up effects of the Bill on the planning powers in this compensation. In his second-reading speech, the State? Will Ministerial powers contained in the Bill Minister makes the following point: override the powers in the Planning and Environment Act? The Minister is not paying The Bill also inserts into the Land Act 1958 proposed attention to my contribution. I wonder whether the section 412, which section alters or varies section 85 of Minister - hello! I am trying to ask the Minister a the Constitution Act 1975 to the extent necessary to fundamental question. prevent the Supreme Court awarding compensation where the provisions mentioned above prohibit it. Mr I. W. Smith - You are repetitive and boring! The Minister continues: Mr DOLUS - We are trying to assist the Minister. Does the Bill contradict any aspects of the Specifically, the reason for the provision is that it would Planning and Environment Act? The opposition is be impossible to achieve the government's intention of trying to assist the Minister by ensuring that Bill creating more flexible alienation options for Crown does not have to come back. land if grants and leases were delayed or frustrated by compensation claims. Mr I. W. Smith interjected. An element of frustration may be felt by a citizen or Mr DOLUS - The Minister's arrogance is another interested party who wishes to make a extraordinary. We have the best intentions. We are compensation claim! It is important that that option trying to get the Bill through the House, but we have is available, and for those reasons the opposition is been met with an incredible attitude taken by the not content with the Bill. Minister. Despite that, I ask the Minister whether he has spoken to his colleague, the Minister for The opposition is comfortable with the objectives, Planning, about whether the provisions of the purpose and intention of the Bill - they make a lot Planning and Environment Act will be in conflict of sense - but when one is moving into an area of with this Bill. developing legal rights, especially when those legal rights affect the public interest in Crown land, or The Minister could easily take the suggestions made even the air above Crown land, extra special care by the shadow Minister into consideration during must be taken, especially in the early stages, by the remainder of the sessional period. The Minister taking a test-and-see approach to ensure that should re~xamine the Bill and consider whether the existing rights are preserved. proviSions of the Planning and Environment Act are preserved so that what he calls "more acceptable The opposition does not believe the Bill will alienation options for Crown land" and what he preserve those rights. I ask the Minister to consider may describe as "frustrating matters in relation to these matters. The opposition is amenable to the compensation claims" are fairly clear not only in the Minister withdrawing the Bill, dealing with the two mind of the Minister but also in the minds of those issues I have raised and introducing a new Bill, who administer the legislation. I urge the Minister to which he can fast-track with the support of accept the suggestions made by the shadow Parliament. It is a Significant matter and it needs to Treasurer, which are good and generous. be dealt with. Unless the Minister is prepared to make some gesture by taking on board the The ACI1NG SPEAKER - Order! I remind the arguments put by the opposition, it will oppose the honourable member for Richmond that the Bill. expression "shadow Treasurer" is not an acceptable LAND (FURTHER AMENDMENT) BILL 1020 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 7 October 1993 Parliamentary expression. I make that point because The ACTING SPEAKER - Order! I am of the he has used that expression a number of times. He opinion that the second reading of this Bill is should address the honourable member for required to be passed by an absolute majority. As an Sunshine by his electorate. absolute majority is not present, I ask the Clerk to ring the bells. Mr DOLLIS - Well, the honourable member for Sunshine is also the shadow Treasurer. Bells rung. The ACTING SPEAKER - Order! I refer the House divided on motion: honourable member for Richmond to the Standing Orders, which have been well established and in this Ayes, 57 instance go back more than 100 years. Standing Ash1ey,Mr McNamara, Mr Orders clearly state that when speaking in the Bildstien, Mr Maughan,Mr House honourable members will address other Brown,Mr Napthine, Or honourable members by their electorates or districts. Clark,Mr Paterson, Mr The expression "shadow Treasurer" or any other Coleman,Mr Perrin, Mr similar expression has no status under Standing Cooper,Mr Perton, Mr Orders. Oavis,Mr Pescott, Mr Dean, Or (Teller) Peulich, Mrs The reason I make this statement is that the Doyle,Mr Phillips, Mr honourable member for Richmond chose to dispute Elder,Mr Plowman, Mr A.F. the matter with the Chair. I emphatically remind Elliott, Mrs Plowman, Mr S.J. him that Standing Orders have been in place for Finn, Mr (Teller) Reynolds, Mr many years and they should be observed. Gude,Mr Richardson, Mr Hayward,Mr Rowe,Mr Mr DOLLIS - Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker. Heffeman, Mr Ryan, Mr There is no dispute between myself and the Chair. Henderson, Mrs Smith, Mr E.R. The honourable member for Sunshine has made Honeywood, Mr Smith, Mr LW. some reasonable suggestions to the Minister. We Jasper, Mr Spry, Mr accept that the Bill must pass and we are willing to Jenkins, Mr Steggall,Mr cooperate in whatever fonn the Minister wishes. But John, Mr Stockdale, Mr there is plenty of time between now and the end of Kennett,Mr Tanner,Mr the sessional period for the Minister to deal with the Kilgour,Mr Thompson, Mr matter. If he is willing to withdraw the Bill and Leigh,Mr Traynor, Mr introduce another Bill, he will find that it will Lupton, Mr Treasure, Mr receive the total support of Parliament. We put the McArthur, Mr Tumer,Mr Minister on notice that the Bill may create some McGill,Mrs Wade,Mrs problems and it is up to the Minister to respond to McGrath, Mr W.O. Weideman, Mr the excellent suggestions that have been made. McLellan, Mr Wells,Mr Madellan, Mr Mr I. W. SMITH (Minister for Finance) - I thank Noes, 24 the honourable members for Sunshine and Andrianopoulos, Mr Loney, Mr (Teller) Richmond for their contributions. I advise them that Baker,Mr Marple,Ms their remarks would have been more pertinent if Batchelor, Mr Micallef, Mr they had been made to their own colleagues while Brumby,Mr Mildenhall, Mr they were in government. Clearly they have no Coghill, Or Pandazopoulos, Mr concept ·of the desire of this government to remove Cole,Mr Seitz, Mr humbug and obstacles from the way of legitimate Cunningham, Mr Sercornbe, Mr and proper development and to ensure that people Dollis,Mr Sheehan, Mr are not frustrated in their aims. Garbutt,Ms Thomson,Mr Haenneyer, Mr Thwaites, Mr (Teller) If they monitor the behaviour of the government in Kimer,Ms Vaughan,Or that area of administration and find it erring, it will Leighton, Mr Wilson,Mrs make excellent political ammunition. The government does not accept the suggestions made Motion agreed to by absolute majority. by the opposition. PROBA TE DUTY (AMENDMENT) BILL Thursday. 7 October 1993 ASSEMBLY 1021 Read second time; by leave, proceeded to third Queensland government to abolish probate and reading. death duties are a lesson we should allleam. Third reading It is almost impossible for any State government to establish tax differentials with other States. The Motion agreed to by absolute majority. Minister for Industry and Employment has recently offered taxation incentives for regional development Read third time. in his so-called industry package, but there is the danger of getting into an option system against other PROBATE DUTY (AMENDMENT) BILL States. In that case, everything would be driven down to the point where the net economic benefit on Second reading even the most optimistic estimate would be nowhere near the amount of money that it cost the taxpayer. Debate resumed from 15 September; motion of That has been found to be the case in America where Mr STOCKDALE (Treasurer). the States compete for tax concessions, particularly for regional development propositions. Mr BAKER (Sunshine) - The opposition has no difficulty supporting the Bill, and I commend the Just as there are arguments that we must harmonise government for moving to put the matter right.