Page 797 - Week 05 - Thursday, 6 July 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
So, the concern of the Rally is: Why would the unimproved capital value datum base be the unimproved capital value of the two blocks that were formerly in the hands of the two widows? Was the correct valuation not something approaching what Mr Hedley paid, as he claims, on the free and open market - $1,400,000? That would have meant that $140,000 was paid. Mr Speaker, they are legitimate concerns. There may be technical reasons, but we doubt them, because we have seen the manuals available to the Administration. There may be technical reasons why the decisions were taken by the officials. But on the face of it, and as a matter of practice, and bearing in mind the necessity to protect the revenue and maximise the revenue, there is something inexplicable about that issue. It is the very issue of betterment that of course has been a major issue in the election campaign, not only by the Rally. It is in the Rally's interests to see the issues of betterment made certain for both developers and others affected by them; that is, the ratepayers who might otherwise pay more rates because not enough revenue is brought in. So, Mr Speaker, the issue raised was a proper one. We used a specific example and it was properly the case for those issues to be raised.
Mr Speaker, the next issue Mr Hedley took up in his letter was that he had been advised by his managing agents that in relation to Thetis Court, which he had purchased for some $3m about three years ago, the rentals had gone up exactly 27.6 per cent. Yet I have a letter, which I will make available under the standing orders at the Deputy Chief Minister's request, from a proprietor of one of those stores. He justified, on the basis of this letter, that his rent up to 1 July was projected at a rise of 81.6 per cent. The figures are there. They can be debated somewhere else. But there is a complete answer, Mr Speaker, to the questions raised.
The other issues that seem to have concerned Mr Berry, but more importantly certain of his colleagues, are questions raised on 4 July 1989 in this Assembly. The first related to a question I directed to the Deputy Chief Minister, asking whether he had negotiated a donation from a director of Wollongong Constructions and, if so, would he indicate where the funds were banked. What is wrong with that question, I ask the Assembly. What is wrong with that question? If one looks through the Hansard of the other house, one will see that type of question commonly asked in relation to any manner of things. If there were an implication there, how else could one get the question out, Mr Speaker?
The next question asked of the Deputy Chief Minister was a follow-up one. The question was whether he had met with a director of Wollongong Constructions to discuss, among other things, the section 19 development? The supplementary question, of course, asked the Deputy Chief Minister if, in any event, he met on a certain date, a director of Wollongong Constructions.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .