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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 5 Hansard (25 August) . . Page.. 1286 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

there had been only one lease rather than three, but which gave other reasons which a careful and prudent Minister would take into account before making a decision, and, having done so, would not make a decision to proceed on those grounds. Mr Speaker, the question then comes back to this: What was the advice, what was the information, that came to the attention of Ministers?

A number of things have been put before this house in this respect. One was my letter to Mr Kearney of August last year. It was suggested that because I referred there to one lease I must have known there was no sustainable basis for proceeding with an arrangement - a deal, if you like - where at least three leases and a larger block of land were required. Mr Speaker, the problem with that particular line of argument is that the letter that members have quoted from in this place, a letter from Mr Kearney, was a letter that asked me expressly about a particular block. It referred to Hillview in general, but also went on to refer to a particular block. In response to that question about a particular block, I answered in respect of that particular block.

Mr Speaker, bear in mind that we have here questions from Mr Kearney and a response from me - a response to a particular request about a particular block of land. If Mr Kearney's letter to me had said, "Will you describe all of the blocks that Mr Whitcombe brings to this negotiation?" and I had said, "There is actually only one block, Mr Kearney", I would certainly be guilty of having understood that there was an argument about three blocks versus one block. But that is not what Mr Kearney's letter to me said. It referred to Hillview and then said, "I understand there is a particular block", and he gave a number to the block concerned. Mr Speaker, I seek an extension of time of 15 minutes. (Extension of time granted) My response to him in that letter was - and I have not got the words in front of me: "The block you referred to now has a different number", and I made some description of that particular block in the letter. Mr Speaker, I think it is quite sustainable to argue - and I do, in fact, argue in this place - that I had the information. I was responding directly to Mr Kearney's question. I was not addressing my mind to the question of how many blocks in total there were that were being considered in this particular debate - that is, in this particular proposal brought by Mr Whitcombe.

Another argument has been advanced by the Opposition. They say, "Public servants knew that there was only one block and therefore the Government" - that is, members of the ministry - "knew or ought to have known that that was the case". The document that they chiefly rely on for that purpose is that of the minutes of the project control group of 18 May 1998. Mr Stanhope relied on it very heavily - - -

Mr Stanhope: I do not rely on that document for anything, Minister.

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Stanhope relied on it quite heavily and he said - - -

Mr Stanhope: I did not refer to it, Minister.

MR HUMPHRIES: I thought you did, Mr Stanhope.

Mr Stanhope: No. I referred to Ms Pegrum's minute of 18 May, Minister.

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