Page 2633 - Week 08 - Thursday, 24 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
the LDA and ACT government as recently as the public launch of ‘EpiCentre’ last week.
In our opinion, it is inappropriate that Discount Outlet Retailing should not now be nominated as a permitted use in the EOI documents at this late stage, given that the site has been exposed to the market on this basis for a considerable time.
The Austexx inquiry on 4 October, as I have said in reply to an earlier question, was not the same as the inquiry from ING on 23 September. The Austexx inquiry was with regard to the territory plan, whereas the ING inquiry was in respect of whether or not a direct factory outlet was a permissible use. When Austexx finally asked the same question as that of ING regarding a direct factory outlet it received similar advice to that provided to ING as contained in Mr Savery’s letter dated 8 December 2005.
I want to emphasise that ING and Austexx were registered bidders in the process and received the same information in respect of lease and development conditions and sales documents, and had the opportunity to make further inquiries to their relevant agencies. The ING request for information was of a more general nature and one that ACTPLA and LDA felt would have been clarified by reference to the lease and development conditions which were due for issue by LDA, along with other sales documentation, and which were subsequently issued to all bidders, including ING, on 17 November 2005. It was LDA’s assessment that reference to the territory plan and advice on the expected issues of the lease and development conditions would have adequately addressed ING’s query.
By contrast, and as I have noted previously in my answer to Mr Stefaniak, the Austexx request for information was more specific in relating to Austexx’s plans for the site and required greater detail to respond to appropriately. It could not be addressed by mere reference to the territory plan or the lease and development conditions, and indeed it was not the same question.
Mr Seselja’s comments in the adjournment debate last night, which are similar to the questions he had asked earlier, also demand a response. ACTPLA was responding to specific inquiries by Austexx conducting their due diligence and based, presumably, on Austexx’s analysis of the sales documentation. All of ING’s inquiries were met, reflected in the fact that no further inquiries were made by ING after the LDA responded, given, and even though, they had every opportunity to do so at what was still a very early stage of the process. Inquiries were also made by the Capital Airport Group. They were responded to by ACTPLA appropriately.
I would like to finish by referring to the findings of Justice Connolly on this matter. Mr Seselja refers to a “context of significant confusion”. This was not the opinion of Justice Connolly in Mr Snow’s failed attempt to stymie the auction the day before it proceeded. Justice Connolly stated as follows:
It seems to me that it is abundantly clear that the kind of purchase at the auction is the right to acquire an ACT Crown Lease, which could be used for the purposes of the lease purpose clause. And the lease purpose clause is for: bulky goods, non-retail commercial, restaurant, and shop.
Justice Connolly also referred to the nature of the registered bidders when he said:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .