Page 4032 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 13 December 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The site was marketed as a bulky goods site prior to its sale but the development application on the ACTPLA website suggests that in addition to bulky goods there will be a significant amount of small retail outlets on the site, making it more akin to a large shopping centre.
Contrary to Mr Seselja’s claim, what did the Auditor-General say about this? She said:
Further, as it was not the Government’s policy intention to allow a major town shopping centre on the site, it is unlikely that the said land would have achieved a value of as much as $60 million, as suggested by some interested parties.
There it is in black and white. Mr Seselja was caught out making claims that have been shown to be manifestly untrue. He used this place deliberately to attempt to smear my reputation and the reputation of the government. An issue of most concern is that he attempted to smear the reputation of professional staff in the ACT Planning and Land Authority and the Land Development Agency, who have been shown by the Auditor-General to have conducted an auction and a sales process that:
… was in general conducted fairly and with appropriate accountability separately by LDA, as the vendor agency, and by ACTPLA as the planning regulator.
Mr Seselja stands condemned for his abuse of this place and for his continual campaign to misrepresent the true status and process involving the sale of block 8, section 48, Fyshwick, and this Assembly should censure him for that. Opposition members have a responsibility to hold the government to account but they also have a responsibility to do so in a responsible manner.
They have a responsibility to ensure that they make claims that they believe, at least in some respect, to be true and accurate and not to use the avenues and privileges available to them as members to continue to perpetuate claims that have no basis in fact. The real sin Mr Seselja committed is that he had no evidence to back up his claims. The Auditor-General has shown that to be the case.
In this censure motion I am also asking the Assembly to express its grave concern at the failure of Dr Foskey publicly to apologise to the community over inaccurate claims she made concerning the sale of block 8, section 48, Fyshwick. Dr Foskey has been more circumspect than Mr Seselja in this matter and for that reason the government does not believe she should also be censured. But Dr Foskey made a number of claims that have been shown to be untrue and she failed to acknowledge that she made a mistake, which is what she should do.
Mrs Dunne: I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Corbell just said that Dr Foskey made a number of claims that were untrue, which implies that Dr Foskey lied. I think that statement needs to be withdrawn.
MR CORBELL: No. This is a substantive motion and the words that I used were “inaccurate claim”. I am allowed to make such claims in a substantive motion.
MR SPEAKER: It is a substantive motion.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .