Page 4041 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 13 December 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Well, Mr Speaker, they failed to do that. The Auditor-General says they failed to do that. Mr Corbell’s assertions that there was nothing to back our claims are clearly wrong. What we have here, on the fundamental question that is being debated, is a minister who reads that—that his agency, the agency he established, has acted in a way that is not consistent with good public administration—and thinks that is a good outcome. This minister thinks that is a good outcome.
Mr Corbell: One sentence. Read the key findings, Zed.
MR SPEAKER: Order!
MR SESELJA: Well, one of the key findings is that there was a complete lack of clarity and that you should have clarified it. Did you read that finding? That is the finding that Mr Corbell has been denying all this time, Mr Speaker. What we have here is a minister who has made no case. I am going to read over the Hansard—everyone should read over the Hansard—and have a look at whether he made one substantive claim that would back this motion. There was not one substantive claim. He pointed to some questions I raised in a press release—unbelievable. It was unbelievable that we would ask questions of this government, that we would put forward propositions, some of which were found to be true!
This minister has continued to deny the fundamental proposition in this place and outside it. He is the only person in this town who thinks this was clear—that it was clear to all bidders and there was no problem. This minister has failed. He has failed in this process. He has allowed a situation to develop where no-one in industry understands what can be done under industrial land use policies in parts of Fyshwick. He has allowed this situation to progress. The Auditor-General has identified that and the minister refers to it as a minor recommendation—a minor recommendation that the territory plan actually is not working very well and no-one really understands it!
What kind of confidence can business have when the Auditor-General, after months of investigation, will not come to a conclusion; when the chief planning officer will not give us an answer as to his interpretation in the estimates committee, which was then shut down. Mr Speaker, they cannot have confidence.
This report is not an exoneration—it is far from it—and this censure motion has not been backed with a scrap of evidence. It has not been backed with a scrap of evidence by this minister. It is his pathetic attempt to divert attention from the government closing schools and from the fact that he has failed in this process. The business community and the general community continue to mistrust this government on planning issues and they continue not to have confidence in the processes that he has put in place. His Chief Minister does not even have confidence in him, because he is taking some of the key levers away from him; he is overriding his Land Development Agency and he is gradually taking some of the controls away from this planning minister.
This motion should be opposed. It is an abuse of majority government. All those who are going to vote for it are voting for something that has not been backed with a shred of substance.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .