Page 2372 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 16 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Alistair Coe joined the committee and asked the Chief Minister if he was aware of builders offering houses under the OwnPlace scheme at an inflated price compared with what some builders were offering on the open market. I encourage everyone to read the Hansard word for word. Mr Coe said that a house:
… was being sold for $197,000 in the OwnPlace scheme. However, the same house was listed on the builder’s website for $137,000.
It was the same house with a $60,000 mark-up. That is a quote from Mr Coe. He also then said to the Chief Minister:
So would you be concerned if that was a $50,000 to $60,000 mark-up?
He went on to ask:
And what would you do if that was the case?
That is, $190,000 as opposed to $137,000. Mr Stanhope assured the committee, as he said, that he would write to the builders. He mentioned five builders. He shared with the committee:
What I will do for the committee is contact the general mangers of the five companies that provide housing for the LDA.
This approach seemed acceptable on the day when it was clear that Mr Stanhope would write and clarify the issue that Mr Coe brought to the estimates. However, as soon as those opposite became aware that perhaps that was not wise, perhaps the builders did not appreciate the insinuation that they had a $60,000 mark-up, they turned to their typical political stunts. While the committee did ask or raise questions relevant to the new Department of Energy, Climate Change and Water, DECCW, the report recommendations focused on process indicators rather than strategic gains.
Under DECCEW, I note that the report on the Canberra urban waterways project, which I thought would be a significant project, had just one paragraph, whereas Brendan Smyth thought that the noise and dust complaints of Fairbairn Park, which is not in the budget papers and which he alone brought to the committee, was worthy of seven paragraphs, a recommendation and five questions on notice, having 42 sub-questions.
The opposition spent considerable time questioning the minister about the private discussions between Little Company of Mary regarding the possible purchase of Calvary Hospital. The opposition has clearly indicated it does not support the notion of respecting the wishes of business partners to have discussions in confidence. The rationale behind the countless discussions that were held in confidence and the proposal itself is meritorious and I look forward to an open debate on the proposal.
During the hearings the committee asked a range of questions about the capital asset development plan for Canberra Hospital. The minister and the department outlined in detail in great length the plan and how critical the car park was. The committee at no point raised questions about the site, the construction of elements of the capital plan or
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .