Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 10 Hansard (23 September) . . Page.. 3526 ..
MR STANHOPE (continuing):
It may be that the Liberal Party will ask us, will move a motion in this place and acknowledge the error of its ways in relation to Fujitsu and the lease over Moore Street. The fact is that they gave away two floors of that building-
Mr Smyth: Point of order, Mr Speaker: Mr Corbell raised the question of relevance and Mr Stanhope is clearly debating other matters. Perhaps we should come back to the matter being discussed?
MR SPEAKER: I have to say that, from where I sit, Mr Smyth, the issue of negotiation has been the subject of much discussion in the course of this debate, and I think that it is fair enough to reflect on what negotiations are.
MR STANHOPE: Then we might go back to other mistakes that the Liberal Party made. We might actually ask whether or not they would like us to negotiate with those who led the charge on Hall/Kinlyside, in relation to the $120,000 or so of legal fees that we paid in relation to that aborted disaster. We might talk about Feel the Power and the half million dollars that that cost us. That is another mistake on which they would like us to open up negotiations. I wonder what else they might like to talk to us about, what other motions they might like to move in this place.
Ms Tucker: Point of order: I would actually like some clarification on that ruling then. I cannot see how this is relevant to this debate.
Mrs Dunne: Waffling on!
MR SPEAKER: I know. I thought it was pretty clear. The fact is that this censure motion goes to the issue of whether or not the minister has negotiated and there have been various discussions in this place about the issue of negotiation. The Chief Minister, on my hearing of it, was merely reflecting on other negotiations.
MR STANHOPE: Anyway, I am happy to wind up, Mr Speaker.
I was drawing the obvious connection, Ms Tucker, between the mistakes of the Liberal Party, the mistakes that were made under Mr Smyth, and the one mistake that they now admit, the mistake that they claim they made in relation to Nettlefold Street. Of course, there is a range of other mistakes on which this place might now move motions and ask the government, "Will you go out and pay a bit of compensation on this? Will you negotiate on these arrangements? Will you agree to actually pay the costs that the developer for Nettlefold Street has already incurred", I would imagine.
We all know this to be the case in relation to a development of the sort that is planned for Nettlefold Street. The developer already would have incurred costs of, what, $100,000 or $200,000? The suggestion is that it be either a land swap or compensation: it is not one or the other. This developer, in good faith, bought a piece of land put on the market by Mr Smyth consistent with the Territory Plan. He spent his money, drew up his plans, incurred hundreds of thousands of dollars of costs, probably, and was involved with the project for a couple of years, and you would expect him just to enter into negotiations for a land swap-for land that we do not have, in any event-without asking us to pay those hundreds of thousands of dollars of costs that he had incurred.