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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 5 Hansard (25 August) . . Page.. 1197 ..

MS CARNELL (continuing):

The Bolton family had a long association with the Kinlyside area. The Government believed that, although it was not essential, it was appropriate to recognise and acknowledge that association. This was not dependent upon the terms of the formal lease agreements now applying but related to the long history of the family's presence in the area. The Bolton family requested Mr Whitcombe to represent them. That was the basis of our decision to enter into a preliminary agreement with Hall Rural Estate Pty Ltd, a company established by Mr Whitcombe for the purpose of progressing consideration of the development.

I would like to make some comments on the nature of that preliminary agreement. The agreement was not a joint venture agreement. I stress that, Mr Speaker. The agreement was not a joint venture agreement. It set out substantial preconditions that needed to be satisfied by Hall Rural Estate prior to the Territory agreeing to proceeding with the development. It is important to reiterate those preconditions. They represented a thorough and diligent approach to ensure the Territory's interests would be protected. These included the requirement for "appropriate variations to have been made to the Territory Plan and as required the National Capital Plan". The commissioning of a preliminary assessment under the Land (Planning and Environment) Act was also a precondition. Proceeding with the development was also dependent upon assessments of its financial feasibility and architectural, engineering, town planning, land use, market and other relevant matters. One of the other relevant matters was the financial capacity of the joint venture partner to continue. If those opposite had done the same with Harcourt Hill, the Territory would not have been exposed to the extent of potentially $20m.

These preconditions were deliberately imposed in the preliminary agreement, having regard to the special status the agreement afforded to Hall Rural Estate. The Government decided to deal directly with Mr Whitcombe on this matter without going through a competitive process. We did, however, impose unparalleled preconditions to protect the Territory. Again, if those opposite - and I think Mr Wood was the Minister at the time - had done the same with Harcourt Hill, the Territory would not have been in the position it is today.

The development would not have proceeded with Hall Rural Estate if the preconditions had not been met. The preliminary agreement provided appropriate levels of protection for the Territory, and that was borne out as the process continued. The Territory would have been able to assure itself of the community benefits of proceeding with the development prior to committing to the development itself. Again, if those opposite had done the same with Harcourt Hill, the Territory would not have lost the dollars that it has.

I would also like to address again the allegations that have been made that this was somehow a secret deal. Those opposite have changed their tack on the Kinlyside issue on many occasions over the last few months. The approach they initially took was: "Shock, horror, a secret deal". Mr Speaker, the intention of the Government to enter into an arrangement for the development of Kinlyside was advised to Hall residents by Mr Whitcombe as long ago as June 1997. The then Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning wrote to the Hall and District Progress Association in August 1997 in relation to the proposal and this was followed by a public meeting. Some secret deal, Mr Speaker!

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