Page 444 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 27 June 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
by Mr Hedley include an allegation - a scandalous allegation - and I will read it out:
I note that Mr Collaery did not specify in his speech that he has a direct pecuniary interest in rental levels at Thetis Court, in that Mr Collaery's legal practice is combined with another solicitor, Mr J.W. Constance, who leases office space at Thetis Court.
Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table my response to that scandalous, inaccurate - - -
Mr Kaine: I already have.
MR COLLAERY: You have tabled it?
Mr Kaine: Yes.
MR COLLAERY: I welcome the tabling of my response. My response indicates, Mr Speaker, that there is absolutely no substance whatsoever in that scandalous suggestion. There is no pecuniary interest whatsoever, at any time, in Mr Constance's rent arrangements with his landlord. My arrangement for combining and merging my law practice with Mr Constance was predicated on his moving from those premises; that was a very firm and very clear understanding I reached with Mr Constance. Mr Constance is in the United States, and I am unable to determine what his arrangements were with Mr Hedley's company in terms of rent. I have no idea what rent he was paying and no prospect of having any inside knowledge whatsoever as to what the arrangements were. Mr Hedley's suggestion is scandalous and improper and should not have been made.
The actual issues that Mr Hedley raises in his reply in fact further the concerns of the Rally. They amount to a series of admissions, and Mr Hedley as a trained lawyer should know what he has done; he has conceded a whole range of dealings as a senior official. There is an issue made of the wording in my extempore speech on this issue where I said that no betterment or no levy or no sum was paid in relation to the extension of a term for a fresh 99 years.
The fact is that the sum paid - the paltry sum paid - was based on 10 per cent of the unimproved capital value of the land. That arrangement was found later to be mistaken and represented a nominal payment, and that was the problem; no proper betterment was paid. The 10 per cent rule did not normally apply to commercial extensions, and that was the matter to which the Chief Minister referred when she said that there had been a mistake or some error in the past. If my words suggested that there had been no payment, what was intended to be expressed was that there had not been any adequate payment for that extended term.
With respect to the increase in rent levels, I stand by the suggestions made, and I note that Mr Hedley has to produce evidence from instant rents at the premises to justify his
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .