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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 5 Hansard (25 August) . . Page.. 1213 ..

MS CARNELL (continuing):

Discussions centred on the leases held over the Bolton property. The preliminary agreement was based upon Derek Whitcombe bringing the whole of the Hillview property to the venture.

Annabelle Pegrum advised that two of the three leases had, in fact, been withdrawn in 1991-92, which left only one-third of the property, block 630, held on lease by the Bolton family. Now, I would like everyone to listen again. John Harris, who I understand is Derek Whitcombe's lawyer who was working with Derek on this, indicated that they were unaware that the leases had been withdrawn. I will quote again:

John Harris indicated that they -

meaning Derek and he -

were unaware the leases had been withdrawn. Annabelle Pegrum indicated that the agreement to joint venture could no longer be justified on the basis it was first brought to the Government. She believed that there was no benefit to the Territory and the Government to continue to deal solely with Hall Rural Estate Limited. The key principle for sole dealing was based upon Hall Rural Estate Limited bringing the whole property (three leases) to the venture.

For "leases", read "blocks", Mr Speaker. Again, a senior public servant was making the same mistake. This is quoting in full from that meeting. I quote:

Derek Whitcombe believed that he had the intellectual property rights to the proposal. Annabelle Pegrum indicated that no drawings had been brought to the table and concepts did not represent intellectual property.

Mr Speaker, this goes on. Derek Whitcombe's plan was based upon developing what he wanted at that stage, all of Kinlyside and the Bolton property. Mr Speaker, it is very interesting to note that those are the actual quotes, not bits of quotes but the whole quotes. What did Mr Whitcombe believe he was bringing to the table? Quite clearly, all of Hillview, all of the initial Bolton farm. Mr Speaker, not one brief to government was quoted by Mr Stanhope, so there is no way that Mr Stanhope can know that any of the information quoted actually came to government at all.

What we have to go back to here is the preliminary agreement entered into in December. On what basis was that entered into? Quite clearly that Mr Whitcombe was bringing the whole of the Bolton property, as the map attached to that makes clear, and as Ms Pegrum, somebody who was quoted by those opposite, has also made clear. If there is any sort of thought that somehow the Government knew that he was not bringing the whole property to the table, why then would the Government enter into a preliminary agreement that was reliant on him doing that? It meant that the PA was going to fall over before it even started. If we were wedded to the proposal, Mr Speaker, why would we have entered into a preliminary agreement that required Mr Whitcombe to be bringing the whole of Hillview? It just does not stack up. It is not logical.

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