Page 4059 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 13 December 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR SPEAKER: No. The substantive motion goes to the issue of misleading.
Mrs Dunne: But the substantive motion does not go—
MR SPEAKER: Order! Let me finish. I think there is a difference, though some would say subtle, between somebody claiming that somebody has misled the Assembly and somebody who has made misleading statements elsewhere. It is appropriate in the context of the substantive motion to talk about misleading comments.
Mrs Dunne: On the point of order, Mr Speaker, you are quite correct to say that this is a motion about misleading comments. But Ms Porter’s comment was that Mr Seselja misled the Assembly and the estimates committee, and that is not the subject of this motion. This motion is about misleading comments. There is nothing in this about misleading the Assembly.
MR SPEAKER: Will you repeat what you said, please, Ms Porter?
MS PORTER: Thank you. I will quote from Mr Corbell’s reply on 21 June. Mr Corbell said:
The points that you make, Mr Seselja, are based on a false premise. They are based on a false premise because, as I have already said, the LDA provided to all the bidders the full range of uses that were available for the site.
MR SPEAKER: There is no point of order, Mrs Dunne.
MS PORTER: Ultimately Mr Seselja used the estimates process to build a straw man and to begin a scurrilous process of undermining public confidence in the minister, in the planning processes of the ACT and, ultimately, in the government. Mr Corbell, at the very beginning of Mr Seselja’s line of questioning on EpiCentre on 21 June clearly states that all the actions of the LDA and the planning and land authority were appropriate. Mr Corbell then states that the Supreme Court and Justice Connolly agreed at that time that the LDA had acted appropriately in the handling of the auction of the EpiCentre.
That is right, Mr Speaker. As soon as Mr Seselja raised this matter, Mr Corbell responded to assure Mr Seselja that all actions regarding the EpiCentre site had been handled appropriately. As soon as Mr Seselja raised the matter, he was told that ACTPLA and the LDA had afforded no preferential treatment to any of the potential bidders at the site. The LDA did not mislead potential bidders. Our public servants acted entirely appropriately. Mr Corbell acted entirely appropriately.
As members can see from the Auditor-General’s report, she formed the opinion that the LDA and ACTPLA had acted properly, fairly and honestly in the sale of the EpiCentre site and, most importantly, that the sale was in accordance with all legal and policy requirements and was right up with the standards of state government agencies conducting similar sales.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .