Page 4033 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 13 December 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR CORBELL: I draw to the attention of members a letter that Dr Foskey sent to the Auditor-General in August this year. In that letter Dr Foskey states:
It would appear that legislation regulating the amount of allowable gross floor area, GFA, for general retailing on the site was inadvertently changed to allow far more floor space than previously permitted. This change was notified only to the ultimate buyer of the site—
Mrs Dunne: “It would appear”.
MR CORBELL: No, it does not say that. Her sentence states:
This change was notified only to the ultimate buyer of the site, giving Austexx an improper advantage over their competitors in the sales process.
That claim is demonstrably untrue. (Extension of time granted.) I draw to the attention of Dr Foskey the first finding in the Auditor-General’s report in which she states, unequivocally, that ACTPLA afforded no preferential treatment to Austexx or to any potential purchaser. So a member of this Assembly said that this change was notified only to the ultimate buyer of the site and that that gave Austexx an improper advantage over its competitors in the sales process. That claim is untrue.
Dr Foskey is good at holding the government to account when it makes a mistake. This is a serious accusation and she should have the courage to apologise to the community and to this Assembly for making such claims. Dr Foskey made another claim that is also extremely concerning. She said:
I am concerned that the actual sale price was far too low and that the ACT government may have foregone in the order of $70 million in revenue as a result of bureaucratic incompetence or deliberate malfeasance.
Dr Foskey goes so far as to suggest the possibility of corruption. Does she have any evidence of this claim? Does she have any reason to suggest that corruption was a possibility in these matters? No, but she made the claim anyway; she put it out there. The use of such language must be done carefully and responsibly by members in this place and she failed to do so. If members want to suggest corruption they had better have a damn good reason for suggesting it.
The public servants in the ACT Planning and Land Authority and the Land Development Agency are professional, honest and accountable members of this community. For Dr Foskey to suggest otherwise is a grave breach of her responsibilities as a member of this place. To suggest that without backing it up smears those individuals. It is wrong of her to do so. She should apologise for her behaviour in this matter as well, and the Assembly should express its grave concern at her failure to do so.
The government welcomes the Auditor-General’s report and its findings. We welcome its confirmation that the sale process was conducted fairly and with appropriate accountability. We welcome its findings that the value for money for the taxpayer was 86 per cent higher than the Auditor-General’s own valuation, and we
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .