Page 2606 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 10 August 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I believe in transparency not only around this transaction but also, of course, all government transactions and that the information can and should be made available. I think the Auditor-General’s process is a good one to go through. I welcome the fact the Auditor-General is having a look at this, because it will clear up any questions that exist over this transaction.
Mr Barr has indicated in his amendment that the CEO of the LDA has assured the government and the Assembly that this transaction was conducted in accordance with his financial delegation, which requires the LDA funds to be used efficiently, ethically and effectively. That is the very question the Auditor-General is having a look at.
I do not propose to prejudge that matter today. I will wait for the Auditor-General’s report. The information provided today goes some way to addressing that and I think the Auditor-General now a plays a role there. I will be supporting Mr Barr’s amendment today.
Mr Coe: I am shocked.
MR RATTENBURY: Mr Coe interjects across the chamber saying he is shocked. What is it, Mr Coe, you want here? We have the Auditor-General conducting an investigation, and I think that is the appropriate channel. The Auditor-General has all the powers to seek all of the documentation and provide a view to this place that will be an objective, thorough and complete review of the circumstances of this matter. I am satisfied that that is an appropriate way to proceed.
I do not accept the premise of the interjection, which is that we should do this in some limited way in the chamber today. That is exactly why we have these processes. As I talked about last week with the Greens’ commitment at the election campaign to set up an integrity commission for the ACT, we believe it is about having the right mechanisms that can inform this place and this place can then decide what steps need to be taken.
I have some sympathy for Mr Coe’s view that we need to look at the role of the LDA. That is the policy discussion we can have, and they are the policy discussions this place should have. But I am satisfied the Auditor-General is undertaking this investigation, and I look forward to seeing the results of that investigation. That is why I can support this amendment today, because it also notes that the Auditor-General’s performance audit is taking place. That is the appropriate way to investigate the sorts of questions that have been posed here.
MR COE (Ginninderra) (11.49): I will speak to the amendment and close the debate. I am very disappointed that what I think are reasonable questions are not going to be supported by the Assembly today. I have, of course, already outlined the important issues underpinning my motion. They are: why was the higher valuation, $3.8 million plus GST, accepted rather than the $1 million figure? Why was a third valuation not sought? That is not answered here, either. Why did they adhere to the minister’s directions in the land acquisition policy framework? Why did the LDA board find out after the purchase had been made, despite the fact that the valuations were in LDA’s
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video