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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 3 Hansard (28 May) . . Page.. 754 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

of the land but the lessee only has rights and entitlement to the use and enjoyment of the land for the terms and conditions laid down by the State.

Mr Speaker, the standing committee used this evidence to make the clear distinction that, under a leasehold system, the leaseholder has no presumptive right to use the land for other than the purposes for which the lease is granted. Mr Speaker, that is why the Government's answer that the developer had an exclusive right holds no water whatsoever. That is why the Government has failed to explain why it entered into an exclusive arrangement with Mr Whitcombe on the exceptional circumstances ground. It could not enter into an exclusive arrangement with the developer on these grounds because it is not a process which is allowed under the leasehold system. If it genuinely believed that it could, then the Government is not administering the leasehold system effectively or properly. Indeed, it is a case of maladministration if the Government believes that. If people are prepared to support the Government this afternoon against this motion, then what they are condoning is the maladministration of the leasehold system. Either the Government is not understanding what the leasehold system is about and is not administrating it properly, or it is deliberately fostering an environment which encourages the maladministration of leasehold management in the Territory. Mr Speaker, on this point alone, the Assembly has grounds for grave concern over the Government's conduct in this matter.

Mr Speaker, the second issue relates to the Cabinet-level decision on this matter, despite no formal approach from the developer through the Land Act, and the ignoring of advice about the adverse reaction that the decision to enter into an exclusive arrangement would have from the land development industry.

Mr Humphries: Why do you need that? Why is that vital?

MR CORBELL: Mr Humphries asked, "Why do you need that?". Very interestingly, you need it because you had another developer who came to PALM with a formal application and he was rejected. Why was he rejected? He was rejected because his plan was contrary to the Territory Plan and the National Capital Plan. But that did not matter when Mr Whitcombe made his application. That is a clear contradiction, and Mr Humphries knows it.

Mr Speaker, the Government ignored advice that there would be an adverse reaction from the land development industry if it entered into a decision for an exclusive arrangement. Why did the Government ignore the advice that it received in a Cabinet submission which indicated that a decision to enter into an exclusive arrangement with the particular developer would cause an adverse reaction from the relevant industry sector? The information apparently provided to Cabinet, as detailed in newspaper reports, indicates that "a decision to proceed with a direct grant of land is, therefore, likely to result in an adverse reaction from the industry and others". Mr Speaker, the Government chose to ignore this advice. In ignoring this advice, it could only have created the perception that the Government is not operating in an open or fair manner.

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