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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 5 Hansard (25 August) . . Page.. 1211 ..

Ms Carnell: Sorry, now you are saying he did think he had.

MR STANHOPE: I have no doubt that Mr Whitcombe did, but - - -

Ms Carnell: Sorry, you just said that Mr Whitcombe was briefed by Planning. You cannot have it both ways.

MR STANHOPE: I will draw my comments to a conclusion. I know my colleagues have a lot they wish to say. There are a couple of other things that I would like to mention in passing. I will draw my comments to a conclusion. I do have a lot more to say. I will say it later when I conclude the debate. There are a couple of interesting things. Why did the Government enter into the exclusive deal? It has always been suggested in here that because of the exclusivity there is a relationship with the Boltons, something that we have quite effectively debunked. It is interesting to go back to the original folios. I will table the documents. I think that is the best thing I can do, and I will draw members' attention to the letters from Mr Whitcombe. In his initial letter to the Government of 27 June he explains his proposal and refers to the fact that he has this exciting proposal for the development at Hall; he has this authority over an expired rural lease. That is how he describes his proposals. He has an expired rural lease. He does not seek to cut it up into blocks but he was acknowledging what it was - an expired rural lease. That is the point of the first question. It is an expired rural lease, so what does he bring of value to the table? Nothing. I believe my colleagues will talk further about that.

I draw to members' attention quickly that Mr Whitcombe's formal proposal was sent to Mr Prattley on 27 June. On 26 June the Chief Minister was writing to Mr Humphries. I ask people to read the Chief Minister's letter and Mr Humphries's letter. Mr Humphries's letter of 30 June is acknowledgment back to Mr Whitcombe that the Government was enthusiastically supporting this and that it would be progressed. Mr Humphries also wrote a letter to Mr Smith, the Federal Minister, looking for the Federal Government's enthusiastic support for the project. I also draw members' attention to Mr Humphries's file note on PALM's submission to him about why they felt that Mr Humphries's proposal should be put on hold and why it should not be proceeded with, and I would ask them to note PALM's strong recommendation to the Minister that the matter go to a public tender process and to the basis on which Mr Humphries dismissed that recommendation. (Further extension of time granted)

Another comment I wish to make is on the fact that when PALM sought to brief the Chief Minister in September 1997, an informative brief setting out the issues, setting out the concerns of the Hall community, raising some of the issues, the minute - I just think this is interesting - got through Mr Gilmour, it got up to Mr Humphries, the then Minister, and the next signatory in the block was the Chief Minister. There is just a wonderful and, I think in retrospect, a lovely notation from a Mr Steve Forshaw which says something to the effect: "The Chief Minister is well aware of this proposal and the issues it raises. There is no need for her to receive this brief". He sent it back to PALM. So PALM could not get through. In retrospect, is it not just so ironic? I have much more to say, Mr Speaker, but thank you for your indulgence.

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