Page 4045 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 13 December 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Corbell made a number of comments in the past which quite clearly have been countered by this report. At estimates on 21 June 2006 in relation to the bidders he said:
They knew what they were buying and it was clear to all parties what the potential uses were for the site.
And then again he said that all of the uses were very clearly spelt out to the bidders before the auction occurred. That does seem to be somewhat different from what we have in the actual report. I will be reading out sections of the report shortly because it quite clearly shows that this government still has a lot more work to do and that there are some very, very important issues in relation to this.
In relation to the process, Mr Seselja has quite properly been doing his job. The minister read out a series of questions that Mr Seselja was asking. It is the job of an opposition to ask questions. It is the job of a government to respond and to ensure that its processes are right. Indeed, Mr Corbell did seem to take a very defensive tack in relation to a lot of this all the way along the line.
So much for open and accountable government; so much for the boast of this government that it would be different from previous governments in being consultative, in being open, in being accountable! I do not think we have seen a more secretive, less accountable government since we have had self-government, and I wonder why. It is probably because they are the first majority government and they are very arrogant as a result of that.
The Canberra Times has written a number of articles on this. It is certainly a paper I do not necessarily agree with but I think it does make some relevant points for this debate in an editorial headed “Auditor’s finding: it’s no Snow job”. It goes through a series of chronological events ending up, halfway down the page, with the Supreme Court action. It says:
The reaction of the ACT Government in blocking public scrutiny of Assembly estimates hearings on the sale only lent weight to Snow’s allegations that Austexx had received preferential treatment. Further, it suggested that Snow was perhaps being punished for instigating large-scale developments at the airport without regard for the Territory Plan and the National Capital Plan—indeed, Planning Minister Simon Corbell has expressed some annoyance of Snow’s activities, even though such developments are perfectly legal and proper under the terms of his ownership of the airport.
Snow’s relentless campaign paid off in August, when Auditor-General Tu Pham announced an investigation into the auction. The results of that investigation, issued yesterday, suggest that Snow had some cause for dissatisfaction over the way the auction was conducted. But she drew no conclusions about the ACTPLA’s decision to approve development of the site as a retail site.
The auditor found that ACTPLA had not given preferential treatment to Austexx or any other potential bidder and that there was no evidence pointing to the LDA misleading or restricting bidders. However, she pointed to weaknesses in the sale process: sale documents that were not specific about planning controls or
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .