Page 4069 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 13 December 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Seselja: We have been talking about it all morning.
Mr Smyth: Mr Speaker, I would ask that you rule the question out of order.
MR SPEAKER: Well, no. The motion this morning was about a censure of Mr Seselja—
Mr Smyth: Concerning the sale.
MR SPEAKER: in relation to statements that he made.
Mr Smyth: About the sale.
MR SPEAKER: Mr Corbell has not attempted to deal with that issue, that is, the censure motion. Neither has he attempted to deal with—
Mr Seselja: He went to claims inside and outside the—
MR SPEAKER: Order, Mr Seselja! Of course, it directs its attention to Dr Foskey as well. It has not attempted to anticipate debate there. On that point of order, I would rule against you, Mr Smyth.
MR CORBELL: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is interesting how touchy the Liberal Party are getting on this matter. The Land Development Agency was the responsible agency for the sale of the lease of this land. The Auditor-General, in her findings on the audit, found that the LDA has appropriate policies and procedures in place for the sale. She went on to find that those policies and procedures are generally in accordance with good practice principles observed in other Australian jurisdictions.
Furthermore, the Auditor-General found that there was no evidence of any conflict of interest or unfairness that might have compromised the integrity of the sale. I would leave, too, Mr Seselja. It is clearly very embarrassing to you. Mr Speaker, the Auditor-General concluded:
… there is no evidence to suggest there was a lack of interest from suitable developers as a result of the LDA’s advertisement and marketing strategy.
This really does put to bed the claim made by Mr Seselja and others that the marketing strategy was in some way flawed or failed to ensure that the territory got an adequate return.
In relation to the issue of value for money for the territory, I have been amazed about the number of amateur valuers in this town who believe they know what value should have been achieved from the sale. Indeed, even Dr Foskey has become a valuer. In her letter to the Auditor-General she claimed:
I am concerned that the actual sale price was far too low, and that the ACT Government may have forgone in the order of $70 million in revenue as a result of bureaucratic incompetence or deliberate malfeasance. The $70 million
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .