Page 399 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 2 March 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
They bought them out, I am told, at a price of $330,000. Their investment had appreciated because of the quality of that investment. So Gordon Valley Homes received back the $330,000. I could not tell Mr Kaine what happened to that $330,000. I presume that they did the best with it. They needed that money to try to keep their firm afloat and I would presume that they used it to pay creditors and to keep themselves going; but I cannot give the details of that. I think there was an inference in Mr Kaine's question that maybe creditors of Gordon Valley Homes did badly out of this. In fact, they got $30,000 more than they might otherwise have done because of the Gordon Valley Homes investment in Habitat and the joint venture with the Government.
MR KAINE: I ask a supplementary question, Madam Speaker. My original question asked whether or not there was any benefit for anybody in allowing the company to withdraw when it did, but perhaps - - -
Mr Wood: Thirty thousand bucks worth.
MR KAINE: Perhaps I could ask the Minister the obverse of that question. Did the Government, before it agreed to the withdrawal of Gordon Valley Homes from this consortium, establish that there would be no detriment to people who had an interest in that company - and I speak particularly of subcontractors and suppliers?
MR WOOD: Madam Speaker, I understand that it was carefully assessed, as it was before they even came into the venture, and it was expected that the best outcome would be provided by allowing Gordon Valley Homes to withdraw from Habitat because by so doing they had access to those funds which would help them. I think that, in terms of assisting the subcontractors and other creditors, this was the best possible result, and that assessment was made before agreement was given.
North Watson Residential Development
MR MOORE: My question is to Mr Bill Wood as Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning. It refers to the Access Economics paper which was prepared and which was tabled in this chamber, I think, yesterday. On page 7 of that report it states:
... it was not part of our brief to undertake a cost benefit analysis of the North Canberra Area Strategy.
A little bit later on it says:
... North Canberra will have implications for lifestyles, travel times, pressure on amenities, and so forth.
Later still it says:
Third, we have not been concerned to try to estimate in any absolute sense the net costs and benefits arising under the North Watson proposal.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .