Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 5 Hansard (10 May) . . Page.. 1375 ..
MR SMYTH: Mr Moore also has approached me on this issue. The government does not approve of unethical behaviour. The two parties approached the real estate agent and they were asked to submit an offer and to prove that they could actually afford to purchase the house. There was a form which they both filled in. The form which they completed stated:
Due to the fact that we have multiple interest in the subject property, we have asked that you submit your final and best offer. Our vendor has been advised that we are undertaking this process. All offers received will be put to the vendor for consideration at the same time. The vendor's decision will be final and no further negotiations will be entered into.
On that basis, both parties presented their financial profile and both parties made an offer. One offered $247,000 and the other offered $248,100. Both parties were advised of the result and, after hearing that his offer was unsuccessful, the losing bidder then upped his offer to $250,000. Given that the process was run, that we had two offers from multiple buyers and we accepted and assessed those offers to see which was best for the client, if we had actually accepted the $250,000 offer it would have been gazumping. We did not accept it. We stayed at the $248,100. I believe, from what I have been told, that the process is fine and is the way that this is conducted.
MR WOOD: I have a supplementary question, Mr Speaker. I admit to some uncertainty as to exactly what the minister meant at the outset. He seemed to indicate that the person I mentioned who went in and put a deposit on it was given the chance to up his offer. I will have a look at your answer very carefully. I do not know whether we are dealing with two different stories here, but the minister's response does not quite fit with what I understood. But it is the case that the vendor-in this case, ACT Housing-is the one who makes the decision. It appears, nevertheless, that the vendor, ACT Housing, against ethics went into a subsequent auction almost.
MR SMYTH: The house was initially offered for auction and was passed in. It was then displayed. Two offers were made on the same weekend.
Mr Wood: Two offers on the same weekend?
MR SMYTH: I can only relay to you what I have been told. I understand that two offers and two deposits were made on the weekend. It was put to the vendor-the vendor being ACT Housing. We said, "Check out that they can afford to pay this." I will read again the words of the form that they are given:
Due to the fact that we have had multiple interest in the subject property, we have asked that you submit your final and best offer.
That was done. We accepted one offer. The gentleman whose offer was not accepted then came back with a larger offer. If we had accepted that, that would have been gazumping. We did not do that. We went with the offer that we had received, that won what I guess you would call a tender process. My understanding is that that is legitimate.
Mr Wood: I will be asking more questions about this matter, especially about who the buyer finished up being.
MR SPEAKER: Order! You have asked your questions.
MR SMYTH: Mr Speaker, I will be delighted to take more questions later as well.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .