Page 796 - Week 05 - Thursday, 6 July 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
that some kind of demonstrative event could flow from the Rally sitting down without rising to the issue. Mr Speaker, in the best traditions of the Hop Harrigan radio programs, I will now summarise the morning's dramatic instalment so we can proceed with the afternoon's. This morning we saw a lot of hop-hops, because people got to their feet on points of order, but I hope that I can proceed with the rest of this debate in a fair sense of compassion for someone who is so deeply concerned, as obviously Mr Berry is, for that topic.
Mr Speaker, the issues raised relate, on the statements from the members of the house opposite me, to comments made by the Rally, principally made by me, in this chamber. Those comments, when one reviews Hansard, relate firstly to a commentary made by me concerning a named official and an unnamed official when moving the motion for the establishment of a form of independent commission against corruption in the ACT. In that debate I mentioned a number of concerns relating to a former senior official of the Administration, a Mr Anthony Hedley.
We know that since that time a letter from Mr Hedley has been tabled in the house, responding to some of the points I raised. This morning I went through the three principal points raised by Mr Hedley. With respect to one such matter - that is, that Mr Hedley's company, whilst he was a senior official, purchased two homes in Northbourne Avenue for $650,000 and $750,000 respectively - I indicated that the most compelling and important aspect of that declaration by Mr Hedley was, in his words, that he made a full declaration of the purchase and the proposal to develop an office building to the secretary to the department at the time.
This was consistent with his - now wait for the words, Mr Speaker - usual practice of advising the secretary of any changes to "my financial interests". So clearly Mr Hedley refers to a practice, and he clearly refers to the fact that the Administration had cognisance of that practice. That really is the important aspect arising out of the first section of Mr Hedley's report, and I said this morning that that was an indictment of an administration which could countenance that level of involvement in development activity from an official involved at senior level in an administration charged with the overall conduct of this Territory, including the issues of development.
The next point raised by Mr Hedley was that he paid, amongst other things, a $15,000 fee to extend the terms of the crown leases for a fresh 99 years. He mentioned that the amount represented 10 per cent of the unimproved capital value of the land. We can all tell that that means that if he paid $15,000 the unimproved value was $150,000. It seems, Mr Speaker, on its face, that $150,000 for two residential blocks relates to the valuations, the UCVs, of those blocks before they were purchased for the sum of $1,400,000 by this senior public official.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .