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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 3 Hansard (28 May) . . Page.. 767 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Where is the secret agenda in that? How can you be secret about putting something in a letter and sending it to several hundred people? Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, those opposite are grinding out a case which they hope the people out in medialand who do not have the details before them will believe because those opposite assert it time and time again. But that does not make it true and it is not true now.

Subparagraph (c) states that the Government "failed to explain what the Government's knowledge of the status of the leases at Hall was prior to the Cabinet meeting of 22 December". I presume that means 22 December 1997. Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, I have to say that this has been explained so many times in this place that I blanch at having to read it yet again. Again, the answer was provided comprehensively on the 20th of this month, as recorded in Hansard. The question, at least in this context, was: What was the Government's knowledge of the status of the leases at Hall? I repeat: What was the knowledge of the status of the leases at Hall? The answer of 20 May was:

As it transpired - and this information became clear, at least to the Government, only very recently; that is, in the last seven days - the three blocks which supposedly were brought to the table by Mr Whitcombe in this arrangement were, in fact, at best, only one block; that is, what is now block 630. ... Certainly, the Chief Minister in her discussion with Mr Whitcombe previously had been under the impression that there were three blocks that the occupants of the land, the Bolton family, actually had some title to and were bringing to the table, as it were, as part of an arrangement to develop those sites.

How can any fair-minded person who reads those words seriously say that we failed to explain what we believed on 22 December? How can they honestly rise in this place or anywhere else and say, "The Government has not told us what it thought on 22 December", when those words were said in the open forum of this Assembly and were repeated several times over several days? They cannot. Subparagraph (c) of this motion is, again, a nonsense and ridiculous. (Extension of time granted)

Subparagraph (d) is very similar to subparagraph (c). Why did we assume presumptive rights? We have explained why we assumed presumptive rights. It was because Mr Whitcombe brought to the table three leases. Mr Corbell, in interjections earlier today, said, "No, he did not have leases; he only held documents". The difference is pretty moot. The fact is that people are given lease documents as evidence of their title - not conclusive evidence, I grant you, but evidence. Mr Whitcombe brought those lease documents, the three of them, put them on the table with a power of attorney or some similar document indicating authority on behalf of the Bolton family, and the Government took that at face value.

Mr Rugendyke: As it should.

MR HUMPHRIES: As it should. It should not be running back and saying, "We do not believe that you have these documents. We think you have forged these documents. We want to see the cold, hard facts.", or something of that kind. That was the basis on which the Government agreed to go away and do further work. It agreed to go away

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