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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 3 Hansard (28 May) . . Page.. 753 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

Mr Morgan said yes. Mr Morgan also confirmed that the Government has a policy position in relation to the tender process if joint ventures are progressed. Again, at the public hearing, I asked Mr Morgan:

The competitive process is the preferred process in normal circumstances for joint ventures?

Mr Morgan said yes. What does this information tell us, Mr Speaker? It tells us that the Government does not believe that joint ventures are a preferred model for land development in the Territory - I would be interested to know what are, by the way - but, if they are to be progressed, they should be by a public tender process. Mr Morgan also indicates that this policy position does not necessarily rule out other arrangements, but there would need to be exceptional circumstances if that were to occur.

We have clear evidence that the Government has ignored its own policy approach in relation to joint venture land development and public tender. It is clear that the Government has adopted this approach because it believes that there were exceptional circumstances that warranted that decision. The obvious question, Mr Speaker, is: What are those exceptional circumstances? What are the circumstances that justify the Government departing from its stated policy position? The answer from the Chief Minister and others has been that the developer had a written authority from the lessees of the land concerned - that is, the Hillview property - and that he therefore had an exclusive right, and a greater right than anybody else, to negotiate with the Government in relation to the land. That is why the Government decided to ignore its own requirements for public tender if a joint venture is entered into.

Why is this not an acceptable answer from the Government? It is not acceptable, Mr Speaker, because what the Government claimed the developer had in relation to the Hillview property which allowed him to negotiate exclusively with the Government is what is called a presumptive right, and presumptive rights do not exist in a leasehold system. If the developer had claimed these rights in New South Wales, over the border, where freehold exists, he would have had a claim. He would have had a very strong claim. But in Canberra we have a leasehold system, and under a leasehold system speculative activities such as the developer attempted in this case are extremely curtailed, and presumptive rights simply do not exist. In other words, Mr Speaker, the Government's argument has no weight whatsoever.

To support this argument, Mr Speaker, I will quote from evidence which was provided to the Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives in relation to its report in 1988 on the Canberra leasehold system, where a very clear distinction was made between freehold and leasehold by a witness, and the committee chose to use this witness's evidence as an example of why presumptive rights do not exist. The witness said:

Freehold tenure empowers landholders to control the use and development of the land, and its sale, transfer and subdivision. Leasehold tenure splits that down the middle. Leasehold tenure empowers the landlord to control the use, development and subdivision

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