Page 1904 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 25 June 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The opposition argument relies on internal government documents and emails which do, indeed, on occasions contradict the government’s position that the development site was entirely up to ActewAGL. For example, the opposition relies on an email of 7 July 2008 from the senior manager of the planning and urban services section of the Cabinet and Policy Group in which he refers to a draft letter from the Chief Minister to John Mackay. According to the email, the draft letter notes that the government is urgently assessing the sites to advise the Chief Minister which is the most appropriate. The email also states that the Chief Minister will then write a letter to Mr Mackay informing him of the final site.
Clearly, this email contradicts the Chief Minister’s statements on the site selection process, and if the email correctly reflects the Chief Minister’s position, then it would indeed be a cause for serious concern. However, I am not satisfied that this account of the email correctly reflected the Chief Minister’s communications with ActewAGL. Having spoken to the government about this email, I am informed that the draft letter referred to in the email ended up as the Chief Minister’s letter of 19 July 2008.
I am a bit bewildered, because Mr Smyth got up and said that the government should table this document; they are hiding things. I met with Mr Seselja yesterday afternoon and he assured me he had a copy of this letter, so I do not understand the secrecy. This letter is one of the most telling documents in this whole saga. I have read it, and I would need a substantial amount more convincing that there has been misleading conduct or wrongdoing.
This letter notes ActewAGL’s prevailing preferences for each of the three sites and does not mention any of them being unavailable. It states that the sites would be assessed on their merits, but does not state that the Chief Minister would inform ActewAGL of the final site. The letter is somewhat vague about whether ActewAGL will be able to have any site they want. It does suggest that this is subject to assessment but that in-principle support will be given for some site.
Nevertheless, the letter also does not rule out any of the sites at all. In fact, following receipt of this letter, it appears that ActewAGL were of the opinion that they were in control of site selection. On 16 August 2008, Mr Mackay wrote back to the Chief Minister, stating:
Our representatives are working with representatives from your office and the Land Development Authority to finalise our preferred site, which is the section of land in Block 1610 District of Tuggeranong.
The evidence obtained by the opposition does suggest that the LDA at some stage pushed the view that the site at block 7, section 21 of Hume should be ruled out. However, the Chief Minister’s letter to ActewAGL seems to have left the matter more open, referring instead to assessment of the site.
If I could just digress for a minute, my staff have made the point that frequently they give me letters and emails of advice which are not ultimately accepted. They said, “If you put all those things out there and said, ‘Well, this must be the position of the member and should be accepted as a matter of fact,’ you could create quite a deal of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .