Page 1744 - Week 05 - Thursday, 11 May 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Mr Barr’s point, however, that if we set dollar amounts we are going to have to come back fairly frequently to amend them, given what seems to be the rapid inflation in Canberra land values. I think Mr Barr has ended up with another finessing of a good idea that Mr Coe put forward. I thank both gentlemen for their amendments.
MR COE (Yerrabi—Leader of the Opposition) (5.48): We have seen the biggest sell-out yet with the Greens’ action on this amendment. One of the core issues with regard to the LDA board was its inability to follow the determination from 2014. So rather than actually fix it, what the Greens are backing now is for that very same process to continue. For the Greens and for the government to say it is going to be too hard to change these figures because house prices change is pretty bogus, because every single year we come in here and set a new budget. We have PABLABs three or four times a year. There is ample opportunity to move legislative change with regard to the thresholds. Let us remember that it is not like the thresholds we have—the $5 million and the $20 million—are to the nearest thousand. We are talking about $5 million and $20 million.
The Auditor-General’s report really was about the Land Development Agency’s inability to follow the notifiable instrument which Mr Barr signed in 2014. Rather than actually tightening the leash, Ms Le Couteur is perhaps even lengthening the leash, giving the LDA and the government even more scope. And this is a government that has betrayed the trust of Canberrans when it comes to the LDA. The board minutes that we obtained through FOI showed that on several occasions the LDA board reflected on what would be their preferred interpretation of this direction, which goes to the ambiguity of this process.
Yet what the Greens are doing today is enshrining in the new agencies the very problems that have existed with the LDA. The government says, “It is a disallowable instrument; all is well.” A disallowable instrument has to be initiated by the government and a disallowable instrument can only be disallowed; it cannot be amended. We have got major governance problems with the LDA. This is the main amendment to fix the problems that existed with the LDA and with the two new agencies, and the Greens and the government have simply ignored the problems.
This is an absolute cop-out. There are issues. The issues with the LDA are very deep. There are deep cultural issues, there are procedural issues, there are governance issues and there are all sorts of problems. To think that suddenly renaming the LDA as two new agencies is somehow going to fix it is absolutely bogus. And for the Greens to sign up to that shows that they have had the wool pulled over their eyes. They have not responded to the Auditor-General’s report, which said that the agency did not respond to and did not behave in accordance with this direction. Rather than actually enshrining it in legislation, those opposite, including the Greens, have turned away this opportunity and given the LDA a get-out-of-jail-free pass.
Mr Barr’s amendment to Mr Coe’s proposed amendment agreed to.
Mr Coe’s amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Proposed new clause 55A agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video