Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . Search

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2006 Week 13 Hansard (13 December) . . Page.. 4029..

Mr Smyth: Mick's office was not informed.


MR CORBELL: There was no obstruction and no delaying tactics; we accepted it and got on with debating it. Why are opposition members not prepared to do the same thing?

Question resolved in the affirmative, with the concurrence of an absolute majority.

Motion of censure and expression of grave concern

MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Minister for Planning) (10.37): I move:

That this Assembly:

(1) censures Mr Seselja for abusing the processes of the Legislative Assembly by making misleading and untrue claims concerning the sale of block 8, section 48, Fyshwick (the EpiCentre site); and

(2) expresses its grave concern at the failure of Dr Foskey to publicly apologise to the community over inaccurate claims she made concerning the sale of block 8, section 48, Fyshwick.

Yesterday the Auditor-General handed down her report, which dismissed the three major claims made by the Liberal Party and the Greens in this place concerning the sale of block 8, section 48, Fyshwick. Let me put on the record what those claims were. The claims were that preferential treatment was provided to one bidder over others leading up to and following the sale of that site. The claims were that the taxpayer failed to get value for money for that site and that the marketing process associated with the site were inadequate and did not properly promote its full value.

Yesterday the Auditor-General in her report dismissed each and every one of those claims. Let me go immediately to what the Auditor-General found in her report. In relation to the matter of value for money, the Auditor-General found, having done her own valuation of the site after the auction so she had the benefit of knowing what the market was prepared to pay for the site, that the site was worth $21 million at the highest end of the market.

We all know that the government, or the taxpayer, received $39 million for that site—86 per cent more than the Auditor-General's valuation. So the claim that the taxpayer did not get value for money is false. Secondly, the Auditor-General dismissed the claim that any preferential treatment was provided to any bidder during the sale process. I refer members to what the Auditor-General found. She said:

ACTPLA afforded no preferential treatment to Austexx, or to any other potential purchaser.

Next page . . . . Previous page. . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . Search