Page 4104 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 13 December 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Seselja: Did I say “preferential”? I said “different”.
MR SPEAKER: Order, Mr Seselja!
MR CORBELL: Mr Seselja went on to say:
This, to me, appears to be quite outrageous. It is outrageous …
He does not ask the question; he says it is outrageous that two different bidders seeking clarification got different answers and one got preferential treatment.
Mr Seselja: They did get different answers. It is on the record.
MR SPEAKER: I warn you, Mr Seselja. No more interjections.
MR CORBELL: Mr Seselja said to me that it appears to be quite outrageous. That was the ongoing tenor of the questions and the comments he made inside and outside this place. These were not innocent questions. These were not about soliciting more information. These were all about trying to besmirch the reputation of our planning officials, of our planning agency, of our Land Development Agency and of the planning scheme in the ACT.
I draw members’ attention also to what Mr Seselja said on WIN television on 29 August this year. He said, “We’ve had a marketing undersell, we’ve had different messages going to different bidders and now we have an independent report that says the two sites won’t be viable.” The Auditor-General dismisses that. The Auditor-General says that there was no marketing undersell. There was no marketing undersell, Mr Seselja, and you know it, and you have not said a word about that since the Auditor-General’s report came down.
Mr Seselja: Why didn’t they mention it? Why didn’t they mention it? Not once.
MR SPEAKER: Do you really want to be named, Mr Seselja? I have warned you. Do not tempt me.
Mr Seselja: Sorry, Mr Speaker, I did not hear the warning.
MR CORBELL: He was too busy interjecting, Mr Speaker. Let’s go finally to the issue of what Mr Seselja believed were the fundamental questions before the Auditor-General’s report came down. I draw his attention to his comments in the Assembly on 24 August this year. He said:
… the fundamental question goes to whether or not the people of the ACT got maximum value for money through this process.
On 24 August, Mr Seselja believed that was the fundamental question, that it went to whether the people of the ACT got maximum value for money through this process. What does the Auditor-General say, Mr Speaker? The Auditor-General says that we
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .