Page 4874 - Week 13 - Thursday, 2 November 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
For 2015-16 I believe that there was $27 million worth of money spent on property acquisitions by the Chief Minister’s agency. Therefore, the $10 million Huntly property purchased from Sydney-based Consolo Ltd may not have complied with the rules. This is outrageous. This is not necessarily the fault of the sellers but the Chief Minister’s agency that was appallingly asleep at the wheel or did so deliberately. The ambivalent approach to spending taxpayers’ money is absolutely outrageous. What is more, that $10 million purchase for that one-of-a-kind property was done with just one valuation. To the best of my knowledge, the valuation was an approximate as well.
The government laid out the red carpet for the Woden Tradies. Not only were there lease variations but also there was the car park deal. Despite the fact that the car park was only partially utilised, they assumed 100 per cent payment rates and 100 per cent occupancy rates for the car park. The result: the Tradies made a major windfall. The Tradies picked up coins out of those parking machines like they had hit the jackpot on a pokie machine inside. Now the club has been sold for $16 million, and that is more money into the coffers of the Labor movement.
The issue of Glebe Park has been well documented. The Canberra Liberals were vigilant in raising this issue. Had it not been for our questions on notice, title searches, FOIs and committee inquiries, this might have just flown under the radar. Let us not forget that there was a formal valuation of $1 million but the government paid $4 million. This block, coincidentally, features in the grand plans for the new casino complex released just weeks after the government did the deal on this very block. What a coincidence!
It was revealed that Andrew Barr had signed and double-ticked a note which said that Aquis have rights to block 24 section 65. In response to my questioning and presentation of this document, Mr Barr said:
So it may well have been, Mr Coe, that I have confused the blocks.
He said that on 27 September. In question time he said:
I assumed that, as the section number was the same, the block referred to the adjacent block.
I asked:
There are no documents that exist to say, “By the way, the brief was wrong”?
Mr Barr said:
There are no documents that exist to that effect. I will check the record as to whether that particular error in terms of the block and section has been formally corrected.
It can now be revealed that Mr Barr misled the Assembly. He said he was confused. He said that there was a “particular error in terms of the block and section”. In actual
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video