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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 3 Hansard (28 May) . . Page.. 766 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Let us go through the things that are alleged in this motion, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker. Subparagraph (a) of paragraph (2) states that the Government has:

failed to provide details of any exceptional circumstances which justified departing from its own stated policy position that joint ventures are not the preferred arrangement for land development;

As the Chief Minister has indicated already, there are no hard and fast rules about when such departures should occur; but she has set out clearly, as have I, the exceptional circumstances that we took as the basis for that departure from the usual preference for avoiding joint ventures. That was provided on 19 May 1998, as recorded in Hansard:

The reason why exclusive negotiations were entered into with a single developer regarding a rural residential development near Hall is that the developer brought to us a letter of authority to negotiate on behalf of the Bolton family, the lessees of the Hillview property. The Bolton family have occupied the Hillview property for, I think, nearly 150 years; so a right to negotiate on their behalf was a significant factor in decisions relating to the redevelopment of the area.

There you have, in black and white, the reasons that the Government took as the basis for dealing with Mr Whitcombe and, in turn, with the Boltons on that matter: The belief that they held leases, admittedly not of long duration, over that land. That answer was comprehensive, it was complete and it was repeated on several occasions over the following days. It is absolute nonsense to say, as this motion suggests, that the Government has failed to provide details of any exceptional circumstances which justified departing from its own stated policy. They might say opposite that the reasons do not, in their book, justify the departure; but, of course, we do not know from this debate what the Labor Party's criteria are for departing from the usual method of releasing land or dealing in land. They have done it, as the Chief Minister has pointed out, on at least nine occasions in the last six or so years, and they have not put the basis for their exceptions on the table either. So the Government can hardly be faulted for that, I would have thought.

In subparagraph (b) there is a reference to the Government entering into "an exclusive contract with an individual developer despite no formal application having been lodged under the Land Act". That seems to suggest, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, that there is something reprehensible about entering into an exclusive arrangement with a single developer. Those opposite know that that is not reprehensible. They know that because they have done it themselves on several occasions.

Mr Berry: No; it is the sneaky way that you did it.

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Berry interposes a new argument in this debate - the sneaky way that we did it. What was sneaky about it? We indicated what we were doing publicly and clearly to the people of the ACT, and in particular to the people of Hall, in letters several feet high immediately prior to the ACT election. Indeed, we wrote to every resident of Hall prior to the 1998 election and told them what we were doing.

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