Page 2608 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 10 August 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
This is his own acquisition document which, as it says here, applies to “all LDA land acquisitions”. There is no option of it applying to some land acquisitions. There is no option to say, “Oh, but you can just bypass this and use a general delegation.” It states, “all land acquisitions”. That is why, of course, the Chief Minister’s amendment has a bit of wriggle room in paragraph 1(h), which states:
the CEO of the LDA has assured the Government and the Assembly this transaction was conducted in accordance with his financial delegation …
There is a bit of wriggle room there. As for this amendment moved by Mr Barr, this is pretty much all in the public realm already. What we are looking for is information that is not in the public realm, such as: when was the minister told about this saga? What rights does the casino actually have for this block, because there are real doubts about that? When was development on this block first discussed with the casino? What is the policy for bypassing the notifiable instrument? What was the policy at the time that the other three acquisitions were made, which was before the LDA board approved this alternative strategy?
Of course, if the stormwater project is so important, when is it going to start and where are the plans? There are no plans for this stormwater project. There are a couple of concept drawings from a few years ago. But not only that; the government has already said that the focus of city to the lake is now West Basin. The focus of city to the lake is stated very clearly in LDA board meeting minutes. They are working on west of Commonwealth Avenue—not east of Commonwealth Avenue; not near the Coranderrk Pond. That is going to be years and years away. They are focusing on West Basin, which begs the question: why did they desperately need to buy this block of land?
If this block was part of the city to the lake project, when was this block incorporated into the plan and approved by the LDA board? We think this is a reasonable question. Did the government actually use a probity adviser? It is all very well for the Chief Minister to mention the Government Solicitor. Perhaps he could advise if the LDA consulted the Government Solicitor before purchasing this land and what the advice was.
It is also interesting that paragraph 1(m) of Mr Barr’s amendment states:
none of the LDA Board members nor any LDA staff have declared a conflict of interest over this transaction;
But that is not what I asked for. What I asked for was: were there any conflicts of interest, declared or otherwise? Were there any undeclared conflicts of interest? When, if ever, was the LDA board presented with the two valuations? When did the CFO approve the purchase? There are, of course, a lot of questions regarding this situation. I think we desperately need to get to the bottom of it. Further to this is: what information is there to suggest that this block actually does indeed rest with a broader planning strategy for the government?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video