Page 3332 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 19 October 2022
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I note the recent interest in land releases in the territory and welcome commentary from members of the Legislative Assembly, industry and community. I also acknowledge the private member’s business motion from Ms Lee, which calls on the government to undertake a range of actions broadly related to land availability, changes to the Indicative Land Release Program, publication of the ACT land and property reports, and further publication of modelling guidance used in the formation of the ILRP.
I also note that the government has recently received a report from the public accounts committee entitled Inquiry into the Auditor General’s report No 4 of 2020: residential land supply and release. I note that there are common themes in the private member’s business motion and the public accounts committee’s recommendations and findings. The government are carefully considering the recommendations and findings of the report, as we progress our work to release land in the territory in line with the Indicative Land Release Program. We will provide an update to the Legislative Assembly as this work progresses.
I also note that the government’s position in relation to the audit and its findings was set out in the government response tabled on 2 December 2020. The government has since maintained that position for the purposes of the submission to the standing committee. Most recommendations were either agreed or agreed in principle. We are committed to working on releasing land to support development, in line with the Indicative Land Release Program, while noting that there are always challenges in this space. I look forward to providing an update to the Assembly on that work in responding to the committee’s findings.
I want to comment on some of the remarks that Mr Parton made with regard to the ACT Integrity Commission’s clearing of the Suburban Land Agency of any corrupt conduct. I draw Mr Parton’s attention to the fact that the Suburban Land Agency referred itself to the Integrity Commission to ensure that there was no question of corruption and to take on board their advice on ways that it could improve its processes in providing land for development in the ACT. Those recommendations from the Integrity Commissioner are already being applied. The Suburban Land Agency will continue to work to ensure that there is appropriate governance and transparency around how it supplies and releases land for the public, and for the government to develop.
It is important to note that point that the Suburban Land Agency referred itself. As far as I am aware, there has been no corruption found or investigations conducted by the Integrity Commission in the three matters that he has brought to the public’s attention. This particular one was referred by the Suburban Land Agency to the Integrity Commission for investigation. I note the focus that was placed on areas that needed to improve. Of course, the Suburban Land Agency has recognised that. It is doing that work and it has already made a number of adjustments to the way that it provides land in the put-and-call process so that there is more transparency around that.
That goes to ensuring that there is availability, so that, when builders and developers go to that put-and-call arrangement, there is clear advice and information provided and there is no opportunity for developers or others to double up on those land
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video