Page 1884 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 25 June 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The Liberal Party has a theory. Its theory, or should I say its fantasy, is that I and my officials strongarmed a data centre consortium into agreeing to a site that was not its preferred option and that we did so in order that we could retain an alternative, more valuable site for later sale. They have no evidence for it, mind you, or any evidence of the inconsistency; it is just a fantasy born of their fevered imaginations.
Let us speak logically about this supposed train of events for one moment. If my intention, or the intention of any of my officials, was to have the consortium choose the site it ultimately chose, why would we have identified more than one site at the outset? We would have identified a single site and said, “Well, here it is. Take it or leave it.” Let us not stop with this single excursion into logic. Let us follow the theory to its logical conclusion. What could have been the financial benefit to the government in steering the data centre consortium away from the hidden site, a site that is, by the way, as close to the suburb of Gilmore as the preferred site is to the home of the Leader of the Opposition?
An application for a direct sale, such as that made by the consortium, is not a request for a gift. Once approved, the land is sold at market value. The fact is, if the Hume site had finally been chosen by the consortium as its preferred site, it would have been purchased by the consortium at market value. It would not have been the preference of officers who had worked to prepare the site for industrial release and who might have been required to go back and prepare another site—that much is clear from the documentation—but that possibility was also raised in the documentation. So what? Logically, the government would have realised the full market value of that site, irrespective of the identity of the buyer, and irrespective of whether it was bought by this consortium or another, this buyer or another.
The financial windfall to be gained by anyone strongarming the consortium onto a different site is patently illusory. It is a fairytale artefact. It is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. It is hidden pirate treasure in a famous five tale. It exists wholly and solely in the rantings of an inexperienced politician who imagines that everyone shares his own moral and ethical standards. Mr Speaker, he is wrong on that score. The record is unambiguous. Is it not interesting that, of the documents tabled by the Leader of the Opposition, he did not table the letter that I wrote to Mr John Mackay on 19 July.
On 19 July 2007, I wrote to the Chief Executive of ActewAGL, Mr Mackay, explicitly identifying that the Hume block at that time, the consortium’s preferred site, was still available, along with another site at Hume and another on Mugga Lane opposite the tip, which was ultimately selected by the consortium. Allow me to quote from the letter, which I did at estimates, which says:
Your letter of 22 May sought the immediate offer of a lease of a portion of part Block 18 Section 23 Hume in order for ActewAGL to obtain certainty with respect to its entitlements of the land and allow ActewAGL to complete commercial arrangements with prospective partners and clients.
At a meeting of ActewAGL and Government representatives on Friday 6 July 2007, the Land Development Agency (LDA) informed your officers that the Government has only just learnt of the need to undertake a heritage examination
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .