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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 3 Hansard (28 May) . . Page.. 761 ..

Ms Carnell: There were public meetings that he spoke at.

MR STANHOPE: Yes, but nobody knew about an arrangement. Nobody knew that the Government had entered into an arrangement to develop 300 blocks at Hall/Kinlyside. Nobody knew that the Cabinet had made arrangements for a single developer to make perhaps a multimillion dollar profit from the development and sale of land at Hall.

The Government tells us, through Mr Mick Lilley, that there were 150 blocks in the first two stages to be developed on Hillview. An agreement was signed between the Government and Mr Whitcombe on 13 January. The agreement that was signed provided that the Government would pay Mr Whitcombe for all the up-front work that he was required to do to develop the land to the point where the Government would again consider whether, as a result of the formal planning processes, a joint venture would be entered into and we could begin to sell the land. The interesting thing about these arrangements is, of course, that the justification which has been consistently put by the Government for choosing Mr Whitcombe from the ruck was that he brought to the table something which nobody else in Canberra could bring to the table, namely, authority to deal exclusively with certain leases. We are told, and we are asked to believe, that he brought to the table authority to deal exclusively with three leases.

We were told, only when the Government rolled over on this and threw in the towel, hanging Mr Whitcombe out to dry, that the reason that it had withdrawn from the process was that, in fact, Mr Whitcombe had unknowingly and unconsciously misled them into believing he had authority over three leases, whereas he discovered just 10 days ago that, in fact, he had authority over only one lease. This is the reason that the Government gives us for Mr Whitcombe throwing in his hand on this proposal. The only figure we have in terms of what this development might be worth is a figure floated by Mr Kearney. I do not know how much it is worth, but Mr Kearney has estimated that maybe the development is worth $37m. We are asked to believe - - -

Mr Berry: Whitcombe or - - -

MR STANHOPE: Mr Kearney believes that maybe it is worth $37m. That is the evidence that he gave to the Urban Services Committee. That is his estimate of what we may be talking about. We are talking of figures in that order. We are now asked to believe that Mr Whitcombe threw in the towel on a $30m deal because he did not actually have authority over two leases which had been resumed six years ago.

Mr Corbell: How many years ago?

MR STANHOPE: Six years ago. The Government had authority over those two leases. They had been resumed; they were in the hands of the Government. So, what is the deal? The Government had the leases in its pocket. There was no need to deal or negotiate with anybody; the leases were in the Government's pocket. We are asked to believe that the Government did not check this before entering into a contract worth millions and millions of dollars over extensive areas of land. It is just beyond belief that a businessman of Mr Whitcombe's standing and stature in this community would throw in such a significant deal on the basis that he did not have authority over two leases which he did not need authority over because they were held exclusively by the Territory.

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