Page 4106 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 13 December 2006

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

Her finding reads:

The sale of Block 8 Section 48, Fyshwick was in general conducted fairly and with appropriate accountability separately by LDA, as the vendor agency, and by ACTPLA, as the planning regulator ... There was no evidence of any actual or perceived conflict of interest, nor of any intention by the LDA to mislead or restrict potential bidders.

ACTPLA afforded no preferential treatment to Austexx or to any other potential purchaser.

That is the answer to the fundamental questions asked by Mr Seselja on 24 August, the questions he now walks away from today, and that is why he stands censured on this matter. (Time expired.)

Question put:

That Mr Mulcahy’s amendment be agreed to.

The Assembly voted—

Ayes 8		Noes 9
Mrs Burke	Mr Seselja	Mr Barr	Mr Hargreaves
Mrs Dunne	Mr Smyth	Mr Berry	Ms MacDonald
Dr Foskey	Mr Stefaniak	Mr Corbell	Ms Porter
Mr Mulcahy		Ms Gallagher	Mr Stanhope
Mr Pratt		Mr Gentleman

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Question put:

That Mr Corbell’s motion be agreed to.

The Assembly voted—

Ayes 9		Noes 8
Mr Barr	Mr Hargreaves	Mrs Burke	Mr Seselja
Mr Berry	Ms MacDonald	Mrs Dunne	Mr Smyth
Mr Corbell	Ms Porter	Dr Foskey	Mr Stefaniak
Ms Gallagher	Mr Stanhope	Mr Mulcahy
Mr Gentleman		Mr Pratt

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .