Page 754 - Week 05 - Thursday, 6 July 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Liquor Authority, informed the house that the number one matter on the issue that day on the paper could not proceed, and of course the Rally spoke extempore whilst its speech was still being run off upstairs. That is a difficult situation and one does not know whether that was a tactic or an accident.
In that speech, which one would otherwise have issued and read very carefully, I indicated a number of things concerning Mr Hedley's company. Mr Hedley wrote back to the Assembly and responded, in the Rally's view, in a completely inappropriate manner. But more inappropriate and more ominous was the fact that it was Mr Kaine who tabled his response. In tabling his response without notice of more than a few minutes to the Rally, the Rally was precluded from responding point by point to the issues raised by Mr Hedley. But more to the point, as I said in my reply to the tabling motion, I said that we should be careful to ensure that issues of privilege are dealt with in a privileges committee in a proper and reasoned manner, and not to turn this chamber into some pseudo court of law.
The concerns raised by Mr Hedley have been partly answered, to my knowledge, by a tenant at Thetis Court. One of the actions that Mr Hedley complained about was a statement by me that rents at Thetis Court have gone up by 80 per cent since the purchase, or words to that effect. I was shown, I believe on Friday last, by one of the tenants, whom I know personally and professionally, a letter directed to Mr Kaine, to the Chief Minister, and it is to be copied to me. I have had no hand in the production of that letter. That letter sets out very clearly a rent rise of 85 per cent. In fact, the last demand, only a matter of months ago, was a 29 per cent rise. So that matter which was reported in the press is in the process of refutation by those who were themselves affected. The other issues raised by Mr Hedley are issues which must be determined in due course in the proper forum and I do not propose to be goaded into providing privilege any further on those issues.
The issues that Mr Hedley spoke to were, firstly, the purchase of two blocks in Northbourne Avenue, and Mr Hedley concedes that he did purchase two blocks. He said in his letter:
The two blocks were purchased by Hamib Pty Limited as trustee of the Hedley Family Unit Trust on the open market via L.J. Hooker Ltd, for $650,000 and $750,000 respectively. The two widows were willing vendors who were concerned to avoid the excessive noise and fumes from Northbourne Avenue. One of the widows was represented during the sale...by her son, an Australian Airlines captain. The other widow was represented by her daughter, a Sydney businesswoman. The blocks were purchased several years after the final Policy Plan for Section 43 had been approved and after construction had been completed on three out of the nine blocks in that section. The blocks were available for purchase by anybody.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .