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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 7 Hansard (26 June) . . Page.. 2538 ..

MRS DUNNE

with this, this man's livelihood and, therefore, the livelihood of his employees might be at risk.

What has happened in this case, Mr Speaker, is that everything about the way the Gungahlin Development Authority has operated since the first cheque was dishonoured has hung on a legal advice, and it's a legal advice that has been clouded in some mystery. There are many lawyers around town, and many bush lawyers as well around town, who would say that the conditions of sale set out in the auction document, which is an extremely fat document, are quite clear, and there is no way that we could get around them.

As I've said before, the conditions of sale include that there is no contract unless a deposit of 10 per cent of the full bidding price is paid at the fall of the hammer. It seems, from what one hears in discussion in the media and discussion in this place, that the Gungahlin Development Authority has sought to vary that contract on the basis of an advice provided to them by, I presume, the Government Solicitor's Office. I think that there are many issues that hang on that advice, Mr Speaker. The concern is that, in this case, the whole way we do land servicing and deal with people who buy things by tender or by auction is being put in jeopardy.

This government prides itself on being open, accountable and transparent, and the Chief Minister, when he was Leader of the Opposition and making his play for the Treasury bench, trumpeted this over and over again: open, accountable, transparent. Mr Speaker, it's not happening.

In this case, on two occasions, members of the opposition have asked the minister in question time to table that advice in this place-and he does not comply with courteous requests-and the reasons that he gives for this, Mr Speaker, seem to me quite spurious.

On the first occasion, he said that he would not table it because this was about commercial dealings between two parties, and it would be inappropriate to give it to a third party. He didn't say, Mr Speaker, it was commercial-in-confidence, but he walked around the edges of that.

This is not a matter which is about commercial-in-confidence. This is a matter that is about advice that gives the Gungahlin Development Authority, apparently, the go-ahead to deal with somebody. This is not about the deal but whether or not they should deal. This is not about the substance of their capacity to do the job or anything like that, or how much money is being exchanged. There is no commercial-in-confidence reason for not providing advice about whether or not one should proceed down a certain pathway.

Yesterday, in this place, when politely asked again to table the advice, the answer was a different one: if the minister tabled the advice-there was some consideration that there might be legal action against the Gungahlin Development Authority-then the territory might be exposed.

Mr Speaker, you can't have it both ways: either the Gungahlin Development Authority is acting entirely within the law and is absolutely and utterly confident that what they're doing is absolutely squeaky clean-it's according to Hoyle-or it's not, and then the territory is exposed.

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