Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

None . . Page.. 875 ..

None of that was proved; but, of course, straightaway the media pricked up their ears about these issues. That was unfortunate, and I think it was a quite unnecessary approach to take. From my point of view, there was no evidence of corruption. I have said before: If there is evidence, wheel it out, and it will be dealt with. But to create, or attempt to create, the impression that there might be corruption is unhelpful. We have to get to the issues in relation to the matter.

A number of changes have occurred over many years, going back to before self-government. We have to keep in mind that this particular development proposal is amongst the controversial North Watson proposals which have, in the past, been endorsed. I suspect that there are still people in the community who oppose the North Watson development and maybe this particular development. Some of the opposition to it might be related to earlier campaigns against the proposal for North Watson. I think we have to keep that in mind while we consider this report. Overall, we have to be concerned about some of the investors who have paid deposits for this development and who, I think, deserve some form of protection. It has been said that these people took their decision in the clear knowledge that this development had not been approved and that it was a bit risky; but it was a good deal, so they were prepared to take a punt. To me, though, it seems that selling these sorts of premises off the plan when the leasing arrangements have not been approved can lead to a situation where people could easily be misled about the property they intend to buy. So, I think some more thought ought to be given to that issue as time passes.

The recommendation at page 10 of the report, item 30, goes to the deferral of consideration of the variation of this lease until the inquiry into the leasehold system is completed or - I think this is a pretty important point - until such time as that inquiry has advised the Minister on this specific lease, in order that the Minister can properly determine certain things. It is important that the Minister pay particular regard to that first paragraph, because I think it provides the opportunity for the inquiry to deal with this particular lease first, or rather smartly, in order that the investments that people have made in relation to that development are protected and this issue is not strung out too far. So, I would urge the Minister, if it is at all possible, to adopt that course.

It is an issue that would be of concern to the community generally, because we have to have a transparent arrangement in place in order to determine that betterment is being treated fairly for all investors, and planning arrangements where changed proposals are able to hold up developments, without penalty, ought to be the subject of close examination in order to have a proposal which would be generally accepted by the community and, at the same time, a proposal which does not put a bar in the way of development but which allows development to occur at a reasonable pace and in a way which is easily understood by the community. That is a very difficult and tall order, I know; nevertheless, it is one that I think the Government should take into account when it is looking at this matter. Mr Speaker, I will leave the matter there. I look forward to the Government's adoption of the recommendations.

Debate (on motion by Mr Humphries) adjourned.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .