Page 408 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 2 March 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There are many questions raised by these events that need to be answered. I introduce this matter of public importance and raise these questions on behalf of the many home owners who have contacted me with their concerns, on behalf of the many other private home owners out at the Gordon Valley Estate, and on behalf of Canberrans in general, as all our lives are affected by any unethical and unfair actions that take place in the community. I make the point that the private home owners on this estate have said that they have no dispute whatsoever with the Housing Trust tenants. Their concern is with what they see as false marketing claims, broken contractual agreements and a government that was aware of these false claims but took no action.
The matters I will discuss concern the developer's involvement, the Government's involvement, and what should now be done. This is not, by any means, a detailed statement of the events, but rather a summary of some important issues. Firstly, let me look at the advertising and promotion campaign used to sell property on the Gordon Valley Estate. The first two questions we need to ask and to answer are: "Did these ads mislead people?" and, "Were these ads deliberately placed with the purpose of misleading prospective home owners?".
Let us look at the ads. This was in the Canberra Times and was placed by Realty World. It says:
No government homes - Unlike other sub-division there are no government developments in this estate therefore protecting your investment for resale.
A fax from Realty World on 18 December 1990 says: "Definitely no government homes in Gordon". That was in respect of a vacant block of land, more or less, at that time. That is not surprising, but the intention is clear. With respect to the question, "Did these ads mislead people?", there is no doubt about that. I have received statements from many people that they were misled.
With regard to the other question - "Was it deliberate?" - let us have a look at a couple of points. The developer and the real estate company knew that they could not guarantee no government homes. They know that. We all know that. This was the statement made by Mr Alex Brinkmeyer, the substantial owner of Landcorp.
Mr Connolly: Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I am not seeking to disturb Mr Stevenson. I was going to make this comment in my response. This matter has been referred by the Director of Consumer Affairs to the Director of Public Prosecutions to make a decision as to whether criminal or civil action for misleading conduct under the Trade Practices Act should be taken. I do not want to force Mr Stevenson to make no comment on it; but, bearing in mind that the matter is before the independent Director of Public Prosecutions to make that decision, I wonder whether Mr Stevenson could refrain from drawing the conclusion. Perhaps he could be a little careful in the remarks that he makes. I do not want to stop Mr Stevenson from having his say in this place, but I draw to his attention the fact that the matter has been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions, so drawing a conclusion that a person committed the wrong act might be sailing a bit close to the wind. Would you bear that in mind?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .