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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 5 Hansard (25 August) . . Page.. 1220 ..

MS CARNELL: We have now established that everyone in this place who was involved in it at that time thought Mr Whitcombe was bringing the whole of the Hillview property. Everyone on this side and everyone over there believed that to be the case, and Mr Whitcombe believed it was the case. The preliminary agreement, Mr Speaker, was based upon the fact that he brought the whole of Hillview. Even with those things in place, this Government did not jump into a joint venture as those opposite did with Harcourt Hill. We entered into a preliminary agreement which required all of the issues, including the financial capacity of Mr Whitcombe and Mr Whitcombe's company, planning issues, environment issues and, of course, the lease tenure, to be checked prior to a joint venture being entered into. When that process started, probably at the first meeting or the second meeting of the group put together to address the preliminary agreement, it became obvious that that was not the case; that Mr Whitcombe was not bringing all of the Hillview property. I have quoted the comments from Mr Whitcombe's lawyers saying that they were unaware that there had been any withdrawals.

Mr Stanhope: Ms Pegrum told you that was not true.

MS CARNELL: No, that is actually not the case. Annabelle Pegrum advised that the agreement to joint venture could no longer be justified on the basis that it was first brought to the Government. She believed that there was no benefit to the Territory and to the Government to continue to deal solely with Hall Rural Estate Pty Ltd. The key principle for sole dealing was based upon Hall Rural Estate Pty Ltd bringing the whole property, three leases, to the venture. That makes quite clear what the basis of us entering into the PA was. The moment that basis fell over, as Ms Pegrum says, the reason for the Government being in there, and for that matter Mr Whitcombe believing - (Further extension of time granted) The reason for Mr Whitcombe staying in the preliminary agreement fell over. Mr Whitcombe withdrew. The Government accepted that situation. A deed of termination was drawn up. It was an absolutely appropriate approach the whole way through.

If those opposite have admitted that the interchange of "lease" and "blocks" is something, to quote Mr Stanhope, that "everybody does, including me", that is not an issue. Mr Stanhope has not shown that there was any knowledge in the Government, meaning the Ministers who are being censured. Public servants do not get censured in this place; Ministers get censured. Mr Stanhope has not shown that either Minister involved had any knowledge. In fact, the documents that I have read from indicate clearly that Mr Whitcombe did not know.

I finish on a very important issue. Why would the Government have entered into a preliminary agreement based upon the whole of the Hillview property if the Government had known that he did not have it? Obviously we would not because all that would have happened is that the whole thing would have fallen over immediately. It is just bottom-line logic.

Mr Stanhope has shown nothing to indicate that there was any misleading or recklessness. In fact, what I have shown in my speech, Mr Speaker, is that the approach the Government took protected the Territory every inch of the way. The information that we have as a result of the $107,000 is still useful. In fact, the only chronic waste of public money has been the enormous amount of time and effort that these debates in the

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