Page 2006 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 6 May 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
pack from Mr Seselja and his office. It is an abuse of the freedom of information process. It creates anxiety amongst vulnerable would-be homebuyers and proves again the Liberal vernacular that freedom of information means freedom to deceive.
So let us look at the comments that the Liberals did not think worthy of passing on to any of the journalists interested in this story and, through the journalists, to the Canberra public. Let us look at the information that the Liberals did not want the journalists to have, comments on the pages that must have slipped off the table and gone through the shredder before they got to the media. I refer to comments from officers from financial institutions:
Just updating you on the status of assessment of credit risk of ACT Land Rent. No unconditional approval yet but looking very good.
That was advice to the department on 10 September last year from one of the four banks. Further:
This is looking like something we would look at doing based on our first look. Credit risk now have to talk through some issues … with Legal and also with our Strategy area which will take a few days whilst I can’t give you a definite ‘yes’ at this stage, we are moving in the right direction with no major impediments …
“No major impediments. Looking good at first look. Whilst I can’t give you a definite yes at this stage, we are moving in the right direction with no major impediments.” That is the information that Mr Seselja did not want the journalists and the media to have because it did not actually fit with his particular obsession against the land rent scheme.
That was correspondence from one of the four leading banks as recently as September last year—before the election, in the same time frame as I was speaking, a month before the election, before the global financial crisis hit, before credit dried up, before the major banks headed for the bunker and decided it was as much as they could do to continue to offer traditional lending products, let alone devote time and energy to new and innovative ones.
Another example reconstructed from the material that Mr Seselja did not think the journalists needed to have because, once again, it was not actually consistent with his particular vendetta, his campaign, against land rent was from a bank in August:
The scheme was presented to the business last Thursday as advised. Our business leaders have requested confirmation from our Legal area and also our Property Services Unit. I cannot see that they will have any issues.
“I cannot see that they will have any issues.” This was the view of the banks as a result of continuing discussions and consultation. It was an iterative process; it always was. There were issues. There are always issues in every project and every proposal. We discuss, we advise, we compromise, we change.
There we have it. That is the information that Mr Seselja had in his possession which he withheld from the journalists and then had the nerve, in response to a direct
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .