Page 4105 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 13 December 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
did. We got well above the market value as assessed by her independent valuer. Mr Seselja went on to say:
The fundamental question which the minister has not yet answered is: why did not the LDA focus, in all of their advertising, on the fact that you could have lots of small retail, up to 3,000 square metres?
Again, Mr Seselja’s fundamental question on 24 August was: why wasn’t it marketed properly? That was his question then. What does the Auditor-General say now? The Auditor-General says that the marketing was appropriate. I again draw members’ attention to the issue of the marketing itself and I draw members’ attention to the findings of the Auditor-General on this matter. As to the marketing process undertaken by the LDA, the Auditor-General said:
Given the potential growth in the bulky goods retailing sector in Canberra and potential sound investment returns to the Territory, LDA put the EpiCentre site for sale with a marketing strategy targeting bulky goods, developers and purchasers.
She went on to say:
… there is no evidence to suggest there was a lack of interest from suitable developers as a result of LDA’s advertisement and marketing strategy.
She went on to find:
… Audit considers that it was unlikely that an alternative marketing strategy could have attracted significant interest from developers pursuing a traditional shopping centre-type development.
The fundamental questions that Mr Seselja had on 24 August were that there was a major problem with the marketing strategy. The fundamental problem and fundamental question that Mr Seselja raised on 24 August were about whether we got maximum value for money. Those were the fundamental issues then. Has he mentioned those today in his defence? Has he raised those as being vindicated on these matters? Has he sought to justify the arguments which he put time and time again in this place on those questions? No. All of a sudden, he says, “I did not say any of those things. No, it wasn’t about that. That wasn’t the issue. No, the issue was about whether or not there was good customer service.” Mr Seselja should be embarrassed. He should be embarrassed, Mr Speaker, and he should apologise to this place.
Mr Seselja should be censured. He should and must be censured because he used the processes of the Legislative Assembly to make misleading and untrue claims. He made those claims inside the Assembly and he made those claims outside the Assembly. It was not just a couple of questions. It was an ongoing and deliberate campaign to undermine, discredit and smear the planning process when it came to the sale of this site. Let’s remember what the Auditor-General has found in relation to the sale of the site. In her first finding, she asks:
Was the sale conducted fairly with appropriate accountability?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .