Page 2731 - Week 08 - Thursday, 24 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The minister was asked about this in the media. He said, “It is no different from a real estate agent emphasising one aspect of a property over another.” I do not know what kind of real estate agent he was referring to. It is like a real estate agent who has got a beautiful house with a million dollar view, but he brings the people in the back and does not show them the view. He says, “Look at this 3 x 3 lounge room,” or “Look at this single garage.” Why would you emphasise the bit that is worth less? Why would you emphasise the bit that is going to make the site sell for less? That is the question. The minister will come back and say, “We got a great price.” Did we get a great price? That is the fundamental question. That is what we have been trying to get to the bottom of.
If it was absolutely clear, if it was clear to the world at large, to the business community at large, what you could do on this site—and ACTPLA and the LDA clearly knew beforehand or had an interpretation of what you could do on this site—how much would it have sold for? I do not know; I am not a valuer. But there has been industry comment about certainly $60-plus million. We are talking, conservatively, $20 million more than we got for it. That is the fundamental question. Mr Corbell will get up and say, “It was clear in the lease and development conditions. It is in the territory plan.” No-one understood what was in it, and it was incumbent upon the government to make it clear so that they could get the maximum value back for the taxpayer.
Mr Barr asked us for examples of where they could get more money or where they could cut expenditure. This is an example. I have shown examples of where the LDA could cut expenditure. I have shown examples that, if the LDA ran a better process, they may well have got more money. Would not that have been a wonderful thing for the taxpayer? But there has been no clear answer given by the minister or the officials why they would choose to emphasise what is clearly the less lucrative aspect. That is why all of the bidders were asking about it; that is why they were all wanting to get to the bottom of it. They could not. It was not clear, except, it would seem, for some bidders. Why weren’t they giving the same messages to all of the bidders and, in fact, to the world at large? We may well have seen much more money coming in for this site.
There are still many questions to be answered on this process, and we will continue to ask them. The minister’s pat answers and the minister’s evasion on this issue have not helped and have not done him a service and they certainly have not done a service for the taxpayers of the ACT.
MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Gentleman): The member’s time has expired.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (10.22): Mr Seselja has done quite a devastating analysis of the EpiCentre issue and has kept that up since estimates. I will not say anything more about that issue—it has been well covered—except to say that I share the concern that, in a budget that was trying to claw back money from so many areas, it was of concern and an issue that I became more concerned about as evidence appeared. I wrote to the Auditor-General and asked her to look into it. She has written back. She wants to see various processes conclude before she starts that investigation. That is where the investigation belongs, and that is where I will leave that tonight.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .