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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 5 Hansard (25 August) . . Page.. 1215 ..

MS CARNELL (continuing):

In the lead-up to the preliminary assessment, what happened? Public meetings were held. The then Minister, Mr Humphries, wrote to the Hall Residents Association. Members of this Assembly were informed and briefed. In fact, members of this Assembly were driven around the Hillview property and it was indicated to them, I understand, by Mr Whitcombe, that he believed, as I still believe he believed, that he was bringing the Hillview property to the table. Members of this house know that because they were out there on the property. Mr Berry was out there on the property. Mr Whitecross was out there on the property. This was all before the preliminary agreement was even signed. But, even with all that, even with public meetings, even with members of this Assembly being briefed and taken out to the property, and even after Mr Humphries, as Minister, wrote to the Hall Progress Association, did we jump into a joint venture? No, we did not. We went to a preliminary agreement that required, I expect, all hoops to be jumped through, all i's to be dotted and all t's to be crossed prior to going ahead. Mr Speaker, I have to say that that was not the case with those opposite when it came to Harcourt Hill.

I think, Mr Speaker, it is important to put on the record now for those on the crossbenches a comparison between the approach that those opposite took in government and the approach that we took and are supposedly being censured for taking. We are being censured for taking an approach that protected the Territory's interests. We are being censured by those opposite who, when it came to Harcourt Hill, went down a very different path. Mr Speaker, let us get some facts about Harcourt Hill onto the table for the benefit of everybody here because everybody should know about what, no matter how you look at it, was a scandal. We need to go back a few years, firstly. Remember that those opposite are asking questions about why we chose to go ahead with Mr Whitcombe individually. We have made it clear. I think I have shown documentary evidence, including a rundown of the proposal, which I can table for members in a minute, but I will do that later, that Mr Whitcombe put on the table. We went ahead to a preliminary agreement based upon the fact that Mr Whitcombe was bringing the Hillview Station to the table.

The selection process for Harcourt Hill was somewhat different, Mr Speaker. The selection process that was used initially to determine the Territory's joint venture partner was simply not adequate. I think it is important that those on the crossbenches understand this. Terry O'Donoghue Promotions was selected in 1991 to proceed to the second stage, notwithstanding the fact that its first submission was assessed as meeting - (Extension of time granted)

Mr Moore: How many extensions do you think you would like altogether?

MS CARNELL: I think I could go for about as long as he did.

Mr Humphries: Hopefully more concisely.

MS CARNELL: Definitely more concisely. Mr Speaker, Terry O'Donoghue Promotions was selected in 1991 to proceed to the second stage of the process for Harcourt Hill. I think it is important that we compare these two things, Mr Speaker. The first submission was assessed as meeting - wait for this, Mr Speaker - none of the selection criteria. So the entity goes ahead but meets none of the selection criteria.

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