Page 4040 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 13 December 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
were they told? They were told, “Go and get your own advice. Work it out for yourselves.” Then we had a letter from Austexx. Then we had a letter from ACTPLA to Austexx, which came back and said, “We do not agree with your legal advice.” And what does that mean? (Extension of time granted.) When we have ACTPLA coming back to Austexx and saying, “We don’t agree with your legal advice which says you are limited to 3,000 square metres,” what is that actually saying to them? It says you are not limited to 3,000 square metres—the very same question, in broad terms, that was being asked by a number of bidders, including in documents produced by ING where they asked and were told, “Go get your own advice.”
Mr Corbell makes the spurious claim that I have put things forward without any evidence. Well, I produced evidence. And he makes the claim that I have somehow acted inappropriately in asking him questions, some of which have proven to be true, like the fact that no-one understood what was going on. And that is the fundamental thing here: no-one understood what was going on. And it certainly was not helped by ACTPLA.
Referring to the Auditor-General’s report again, on page 49 we have this statement from the Auditor-General:
… ACTPLA did not always provide a clear and responsive reply to legitimate and straightforward inquiries about specific planning controls, such as whether the land use controls apply to the whole of a lease or individual shops within the lease.
That was the fundamental question here. The fundamental question, the reason there was such a problem with this process, was that no-one really knew whether the controls were for 3,000 square metres total retail on a site or 3,000 square metres per shop. That was the fundamental question. And what did ACTPLA do? They did not provide clear and responsive replies to legitimate questions about this.
Doesn’t that go to the heart of this issue? Doesn’t that go to the heart and say, “Yes, many of the issues that the opposition have raised have actually been found to have substance by the Auditor-General.” It is here in black and white. Mr Corbell has produced nothing in this debate. He has produced nothing but a bunch of questions. He has produced not one statement that I have made that was misleading or inaccurate—he has failed to put it forward—and that is why this censure motion is pathetic. It is pathetic.
The Auditor-General goes on to say in relation to ACTPLA’s responses:
This is not consistent with good public administration or with a goal included in the ACTPLA “Code of Service”, which advises ACTPLA’s customers that ACTPLA will:
… Listen to you and look for practical ways of helping to resolve any issues you may have in dealing with us; …
Provide information that is accurate, complete and easy to understand; …
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .