Page 1905 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 25 June 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
misinformation.” We all get advice and we get suggestions from people down the line that have views on how the world ought to be run. As my former adviser, Ian Wearing, used to say, “Politicians decide; staff advise.” At the end of the day, it is up to the elected leaders to make the final decisions in these processes.
At the estimates committee hearing on 16 June there was an exchange between the Chief Minister and Mr Smyth over whether the site at block 7, section 21 of Hume, the site on the southern side of the Monaro Highway nearest to Gilmore, was formally offered to Actew. There seems to have been some argument here over what constituted an offer and whether this required a formal letter of offer for the site. Mr Smyth made much of the fact that the Chief Minister had previously stated that the site was offered to ActewAGL and not accepted but that he could not point to a formal letter of offer. Whether or not a formal offer was made, it is clear from Mr Stanhope’s letter of 19 July 2008 that ActewAGL were free to select this site if it was their preferred option.
Could we just get one thing on the record, Mr Speaker—I heard something on Ross Solly’s show last week when Dr Foskey spoke and I heard Mr Smyth say it today. The Chief Minister and the Deputy Chief Minister are not shareholders in ActewAGL; they are shareholders in the Actew Corporation. ActewAGL is a joint venture between Actew, AGL and Singapore Power. I think it is important to clarify that because it has now been repeated a few times. There is a lot of confusion. In my first week in this place I had a briefing so that I understood the difference. When we are dealing with corporations of the size of Actew and ActewAGL, it is very important to understand who owns what.
Dr Foskey: Yes, and I do.
MR MULCAHY: Good. Glad to hear it.
Dr Foskey: You did not hear me the first time round.
MR MULCAHY: I think that is what was reported on the ABC in the interview.
Dr Foskey: No.
MR SPEAKER: Order!
MR MULCAHY: We will not digress too long on that. Mr Mackay certainly believed that they were free to select the site, and that was their preferred option. During that exchange he was asked by the Chief Minister, “Did we offer you that particular site?” to which he responded, “I think the simple answer is that at that stage I felt we could select any one of the four sites.”
There are several other instances of internal documentation that has caused confusion in this matter. For example, a summary of a meeting between ActewAGL and the LDA states:
The LDA advised that this site was no longer available as it was programmed for development and sale as industrial land in the near future.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .