Page 2607 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 10 August 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
possession for months and could easily have been shown to the board? What authority did the LDA have to delegate away the minister’s direction and under what authority were the three other purchases made, given that they were acquired months before the LDA board approved the alternative purchasing method? We believe these are serious issues.
Paragraph 3 of my motion calls for information and documents that should readily be in the government’s possession. We should get information about why they paid millions more than one of the valuations. We should know why they did not get another valuation. Why did they accept a valuation based on 122 apartments being built at the site, despite the fact that the government said there will never be apartments at the site?
Given the government is using the Land Acquisition Act in respect of land on Northbourne Avenue, which was a more pressing need, why is it that that option was not used here if they were not able to get a lower price? Under what delegation was the head of the LDA authorised to spend $4.1 million on this purchase and, indeed, other land purchases given that the Planning and Development (Land Acquisition Policy Framework) Direction 2014 very clearly says:
All proposed acquisitions are to be assessed against the principles and associated tests provided in this Land Acquisition Policy Framework.
It is all very well to have another delegation. But, if you have actually got a specific direction from the minister, this comes first. This specific direction overrides a general delegation. The policy framework goes on to state:
The following thresholds and decision makers apply to all LDA land acquisitions
It states, “all LDA land acquisitions”. So how can they use another delegation when this recent 2014 policy framework clearly states:
The following thresholds and decision makers apply to all LDA land acquisitions:
a. below $5 million—agreement by the LDA Board with advice to the Minister for Economic Development …
It is a very simple issue; a very, very simple one. Not only that; it is all very well for the minister to claim that they should not have anything to do with the LDA’s activities, but in actual fact his own guidelines state that agreement by the Chief Minister and Treasurer is required for LDA acquisitions between $5 million and $20 million. He has to get involved. He cannot wash his hands of it. If it is over $5 million, he has to get involved and, if it is over $20 million, cabinet has to get involved.
What is more, just when Mr Barr said that he should not be getting involved, his own document, which he signed in June 2014, says:
The LDA Board may refer any acquisition below $5 million to the government should it consider it is appropriate.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video