Page 1311 - Week 05 - Thursday, 31 May 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Leave granted.
MR BARR: The government was pleased that the report by the Auditor-General found that the sale process was conducted transparently and fairly for all bidders. In light of the criticisms about particular aspects of the sale, the audit found that there was no conflict of interest or preferential treatment given to any bidder seeking information about the potential uses of the land; that the planning and associated sales documents, including the lease and development conditions, were comprehensive and clear enough to enable bidders to conduct normal commercial due diligence; that the price paid for the land—$39 million—was an appropriate return for the territory. The amount paid represents a return of 86 per cent above the Auditor-General’s own retrospective valuation of $21 million; and that the relevant land use policies, while needing to be clarified, cannot be interpreted in a way that would mean Fyshwick is to become another town centre. The government has considered the report of the Auditor-General in detail and prepared a formal response to the three recommendations.
I will go through the main points of the audit report in respect of the audit objectives. Firstly, was the sale of block 8, section 48, Fyshwick in accordance with relevant legislation, policy and accepted better practice? The LDA had appropriate policies and procedures in place for the sale of block 8, section 48, Fyshwick. The policies and procedures are in line with those used in other Australian jurisdictions.
Documentation relating to the sale was sufficient to enable bidders to conduct normal commercial due diligence. However, there was a lack of clarity in relation to the planning controls in the territory plan that were applied to the lease and development conditions for the site. The clarity of the sale documentation could have been improved with the inclusion of an appropriate interpretation of the territory plan as applied to the site.
Secondly, was the sale conducted fairly with appropriate accountability? The sale of block 8, section 48, Fyshwick was in general conducted fairly and with appropriate accountability separately by LDA, as the vendor agency, and by ACTPLA, as the planning regulator. However, there was a weakness in communications between the LDA and ACTPLA and interested parties, which could be remedied to provide greater public confidence in the probity, fairness and transparency of the sale process.
In particular, key government agencies should operate through a single point of contact in LDA for inquiries from and dissemination of information to interested parties during a major land sale process. There was no evidence of any actual or perceived conflict of interest, nor of any intention by LDA to mislead or restrict potential bidders. ACTPLA afforded no preferential treatment to Austexx, or to any other potential purchaser.
Thirdly, did the sale achieve appropriate financial and planning outcomes for the ACT? The sale of block 8, section 48, Fyshwick returned an appropriate financial outcome for the territory based on the permissible uses for the site of bulky goods retail, non-retail commercial, restaurant and shop uses. The auction price of $39 million attained was well above that of an independent backcast valuation
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .