Page 536 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 20 February 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
way. It will not be enough to continue the attempts. Mr Jensen made good attempts to negotiate a settlement. Clearly, a negotiated settlement simply is not going to - - -
Mr Jensen: Under difficult circumstances, I might add.
MR MOORE: Mr Jensen interjects, "Under difficult circumstances". I do not think anybody should take away from the attempts that Mr Jensen has made to negotiate, to act as a go-between under most difficult circumstances. I think credit should go to him. The reality remains that this is not something that can be negotiated in that way. It is still not enough. The situation has to be looked at much more carefully. I think it is going to require some much greater response from the Government on behalf of these people.
It is, clearly, a matter of public importance that Mr Stevenson has raised and, clearly, the Government should show some sympathy to the people, should show some understanding and should reflect on what they can possibly do. I see that Mr Collaery is interested in making a comment. Rather than going on in the same vein, I shall cut my speech and allow him the chance to add a few words, if he happens to beat Mr Wood to his feet. See whether you can do the same.
MR COLLAERY (Attorney-General) (4.13): I rise as Attorney-General to endorse what my colleague Mr Jensen said to the effect that my Government Law Office is looking again, at my request, or will be looking again, at my request, at this issue. I want to remind members of the house of the situation that pertains - it was put eloquently by both of the Government speakers - and that is that we have a design and siting approval. All of us here understand that those procedures will go out when the new planning legislation is in. The problem that faces us is how to deal with this situation, having regard to any other like situations in the Territory, and having regard legally to the implications of our undoing now the legitimate expectation that has been given to the proprietor of these blocks. The legal issues that I will be asking the Government Law Office to look at include the question as to whether, if the Government did intervene and if it had the powers to frustrate these building operations, the costs are not simply those of the footings but also the loss of expected profits, the loss of expectation on the sale which, as we all know, may extend to many hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Given the margins that have been in issue, for example, in the school closures debate, I am sure that Mr Moore and other members will appreciate that there are some very serious questions to look at before we jump in and do anything of any nature. My legal colleague Mr Connolly will be well aware of the limit to which retrospectivity is
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .