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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 5 Hansard (25 August) . . Page.. 1225 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

He wrote it on 14 August last year. He knew what the status of that land was before the preliminary agreement was even signed because there it is under his signature. The Government cannot stand up in this place and suggest that they did not understand the difference between blocks and leases. They cannot stand up in this place and suggest that they entered into a deal not knowing what the status of the land at Kinlyside was because it is under Gary Humphries's signature on this letter. If it has not been tabled already I seek leave to table that document.

Mr Speaker, we know that when the Government entered into this deal they had no reason for justifying exclusive access, exclusive rights, to Mr Whitcombe. The exclusive rights came afterwards when the deal was exposed under public scrutiny. That is when they had to justify it. That is when they had to explain their actions. They hoped that it would never become public. They hoped that they would just be able to announce the joint venture and everything would be hunky-dory.

Mr Speaker, the bizarreness of this deal is incredible to behold. The bizarreness of it is that they think that because someone holds a lease with nil tenant rights that gives them some sort of exclusive right to negotiate. We questioned this back in the Urban Services Committee hearing. We asked: What rights does someone have to a development on their land if they hold a lease with nil tenant rights which has already expired and is being renewed on a month-to-month basis? The Government, very kindly, went to the Government Solicitor and gave us some advice on that. The Government Solicitor said that rights granted under this Act are not significant. I quote:

However, the mere fact that the lessee has occupied at least part of the land since 1980, this does not give the lessee any greater rights than those set out above.

It is fairly clear that that shows that the lessee had no rights - he had nil tenant rights - to develop the land. That is what a leasehold system is about, as I am sure Mr Moore knows. I hope Mr Moore does not stand up in this place and sanction an activity which has basically undermined the whole principle of how leasehold works and has undermined the whole principle that you do not have presumptive rights in a leasehold system. I am sure Mr Moore knows what I mean when I say that.

Mr Speaker, the Kinlyside land deal was entered into for no reason at all. The excuse the Government gave was not an excuse. The leases never existed. Standing up here and saying "blocks" and "leases" and "we confused them" is just not credible, Mr Speaker. It is not a credible argument in any sense because they had no reason for entering into this land deal. The fact that they gave us that as the reason is the mislead. To mislead us into the reason for entering into the deal and then leaving the deal is the mislead, Mr Speaker. The Government should be held accountable for that because they clearly had knowledge of the status of the land. They clearly had knowledge of the status of the land before they entered into the deal. But that was not the reason for entering into the deal. It only became a reason when they got caught out.

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