Page 939 - Week 03 - Thursday, 14 March 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
House Building Approvals
MR KAINE: Mr Speaker, I took a question on notice from Mr Stevenson on 20 February. I regret that Mr Stevenson is not here to hear the answer, but I am sure he will read it in the Hansard.
It was a fairly long question and had to do with blocks 2, 3 and 4 of section 77 in Calwell. He referred to a statement by Mr Jensen that the investigation into certain matters had been conducted at the highest level, and then he asked some questions. Specifically he asked: Did such an investigation take place? Who conducted the investigation? What exactly was investigated? What were the findings?
By way of clarification, I note that the three blocks we are dealing with here are having houses built on them by separate families. They are being built as their individual family homes. There is not a developer at all, which was implicit in the question. One of the owners happens to be an officer of ACT Public Works who undertook the role of architect and builder on behalf of his friends. The families are recent immigrants to Australia and are related.
With that background, in specific answer to the question I advise that there have been two investigations. One investigation was carried out internally within the Interim Territory Planning Authority and Public Works, and an investigation was carried out by the ACT Ombudsman. Within Public Works, the matter was investigated by the general manager of Public Works and, as I have said, the ACT Ombudsman carried out his own investigations.
The findings of the Ombudsman can be summarised as finding no impropriety concerning either the design and siting approval or the builder's licence - the two matters that were investigated by him. The officer of ACT Public Works was, however, found to have carried out the work without prior approval to carry on work outside the Public Service, as required by the Public Works code of ethics. It should be noted, however, that the work on his own house did not require approval.
The officer indicated that he did not realise that approval was required in respect of the other two houses since no remuneration was involved concerning the work and the work was being done for his relatives. However, it has now been brought to his attention that he did require approval. Since it was approvable under the code of ethics, he has been granted retrospective approval to carry out that work. The officer has been counselled about any future work. I think that that should satisfactorily answer Mr Stevenson's questions.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .