Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 13 Hansard (9 December) . . Page.. 4113 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

investigation would be complete by that time but that was not possible. On 14 October I advised the Assembly that the investigation had not been finalised.

That investigation has now been completed and I take the opportunity to table a copy of the report. There are a few points I want to highlight about the report. I was concerned that Ms Tucker's question suggested that there had been a lack of propriety in the way this matter had been dealt with. The investigation concluded that there is no evidence of impropriety in the processing of the grant of land at McKellar shops. The investigator also concluded that the actions taken by those involved in dealing with this matter were reasonable in the circumstances. However, the investigation highlighted the need for clarity and accuracy when dealing with matters involving direct grants of land, and the report outlines ways in which these areas could have been improved in this case.

Members will recall that I have already asked that a review be carried out into the practice of associated works. The investigator's report makes recommendations about this matter, and I have asked that these be taken into account as part of that review. This review adds to the report by the Property Advisory Council titled "Appropriateness of Dealing with Developers Outside a Competitive Process" that was released in August this year. The report forms an important framework for government policy when dealing with the issues of commercial or residential development and land releases.

There are circumstances where exclusive dealing is appropriate, but only where the proposal has substantial public benefit. Since becoming Treasurer I have made it quite clear that any decision to deal directly with a developer must pass a public interest test and meet high probity, disclosure, confidentiality and due diligence standards. I realise that this is somewhat inconvenient to some developers, but I regard it as essential to ensure that the wider public interest is protected. I draw to members' attention that the investigation was into administrative procedures that have been superseded by the Property Advisory Council report.

Mr Speaker, the investigator has recommended that the issue of possible false declarations and breaches of the Business Names Act should be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions for consideration, and I have asked the DPP to investigate this matter.

I would also like to advise members that the Auditor-General also wrote to me on this matter. That office was consulted about the terms of reference, was briefed by the investigator and was provided with access to the files used by the investigator. The office was provided with an opportunity to review the report.

An extensive amount of work has gone into this matter, Mr Speaker. The investigator's report recommends areas where improvements could be made. As I have indicated, these will be taken on board, and many have been implemented already as a result of the Property Advisory Council's report. It is my intention to keep the Assembly informed of progress in this area.

Debate (on motion by Ms Tucker ) adjourned.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .