Page 4778 - Week 13 - Thursday, 28 November 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
they need to be current. When acquiring land at least two valuations should be acquired. Proper assurances should be given that the valuations are properly acquired.
One of the problems the committee encountered was the irregular or inconsistent way that people in the government acted towards vendors, at times it was sometimes quite intimidatory. This was especially the case with Mr Spokes bicycle hire. The committee recommends that the government conduct all negotiations for acquisitions or any other contractual matter in a manner consistent with clause 3.1 of the model litigant guidelines and that the principles of these guidelines should be more generally promulgated.
Another important recommendation is that there should be a consistent approach to acquiring land and that, in a sense, some people should not be treated badly and adversely while other people seem to get a free run, as was the case in some of these acquisitions.
There is considerable discussion and a number of recommendations about the Land Acquisitions Act, and how the government should act in accordance with that act in a more transparent way.
The committee also made recommendations in relation to the doctoring of documents provided to Mr Coe under the Freedom of Information Act. The committee recommends that the government define and apply appropriate sanctions to staff who do not comply with legislatively defined processes for responding to requests under the Freedom of Information Act.
The committee recommends that the government clarify principles and constraints on the hire and retention of contractors so that government agencies will not rehire recent employees as contractors unless there is a very good and transparent reason.
The final recommendation is the most important: the committee has recommended that the matters canvassed in the report be considered by the soon-to-be commenced ACT Integrity Commission. We have done this because there is a clear remit for the Auditor-General in investigations into matters such as this, but it goes only so far. There are also limits on what the Standing Committee on Public Accounts can establish through its inquiries.
The committee is of the view that, given the complexity and the seriousness of the matters we oversaw and the contradictory evidence that we took, many questions remain unanswered. I hope that in future these can be traversed by the Integrity Commission. The committee has agreed that when the Integrity Commission commences next month the committee will write to the commission referring the matter to it.
I pay tribute to the members of the public accounts committee. This has been an extraordinarily difficult and complex inquiry. Mr Coe and Mr Pettersson got off lightly when they left the committee a little over a year ago. I thank in particular, Ms Cheyne, who became the deputy chair, and Ms Lawder who came on board in
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video