Page 4701 - Week 12 - Thursday, 1 November 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
seem prudent to exclude acquisitions made under the act that specifically deal with land acquisitions.
The remainder of the acquisitions, for example a termination of a crown lease, may not necessarily have been actively pursued by government or are more technical in nature. We accept that these types of technical acquisitions may not have attracted the same due diligence as those the government has agreed by specific decision. We believe minimal reporting in these circumstances would satisfy the public interest and transparency aims of the bill.
Further, I note that if the due diligence on these acquisitions had been performed it would be beneficial for a full report to be included in the interests of transparency and to fulfil the aims of the bill.
Mr Coe’s amendment to Mr Gentleman’s proposed amendment agreed to.
Mr Gentleman’s amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9.
MR GENTLEMAN (Brindabella—Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Minister for Planning and Land Management, Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Minister assisting the Chief Minister on Advanced Technology and Space Industries) (5.28): I move amendment No 18 circulated in my name [see schedule 1 at page 4716].
MR COE (Yerrabi—Leader of the Opposition) (5.28): While the opposition appreciates and supports aspects of the government’s amendment on privacy in relation to the exclusion of block identifiers in the public report we do not believe that there would be a significant risk in supplying the block identifiers of housing assistance and health facilities to the relevant Assembly committee.
Many people, both inside and outside government, know where these houses or these properties are located. There are many third-party contractors and maintenance providers who also know the addresses of public housing properties. Relevant real estate agents also know where the facilities are; neighbours may know as well, in addition of course to lawyers who have worked on the relevant transfers. And there are many public servants who also know where these properties are.
At no point have we sought to make any of this information publicly available. All that we think would be useful is if it were to be sent to the relevant committee of MLAs. I do not think it is in any way going to lead to this information becoming public. We believe that the committee members and secretaries have the discretion not to disclose these particulars in exactly the same way as many public servants do not disclose these particulars, or lawyers or real estate agents or tradesmen and women who work for Housing ACT on a daily basis.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video