Page 1065 - Week 04 - Thursday, 21 May 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The process for the negotiations around this block were complex and the report underlines that there were and remain various views about valuations, what something might be worth, what the definition of a substantial variance is and whether the EDD should have operated with the scope it did.
The private sector approach that some officials brought to the agency, combined with the lack of record keeping, means it has been a bit of a challenge to piece some things together. However, this report, when read as a whole, is a time line which provides some detail and explanation where the audit report raised questions.
For a report of its considerable length there are not many recommendations, but I believe the recommendations Ms Cody and I agree with are meaningful, reflect the evidence and provide some guidance on how we can ensure that future tenders are conducted to a sufficient standard to give the public utmost confidence in the process.
In particular, the sales highlighted gaps in ACT legislation regarding the conduct of tenders and the disposal of land held by the ACT government. In this example, this lack of guidance led to EDD freely negotiating and entering into contracts as if it were a private entity. And record keeping, record keeping, record keeping. It is necessary. It goes without saying—or it should go without saying—but especially when something is complex, and we have made recommendations as an entire committee to address this.
There are a handful of areas in the report where Ms Cody and I have dissented. We have gone to some lengths to provide comments to explain these within the report and with the summary at the end of the report. These are largely where we believe evidence was erroneously conflated or where conclusions have been drawn or commentary made without considering all the evidence available or without, in our view, considering all the evidence fairly.
I particularly draw attention to footnotes 105, 564, 577 and 620. I think the report does not make a strong enough distinction between the difference regarding decisions about the release of a block of land and who is responsible for and involved in that, compared to decisions regarding the negotiations of a sale and who is responsible for and involved in that. It is regrettable that something which I think is obvious from the evidence has not been taken into account in the report.
I also think it is unconscionable, and likely unprecedented, that the committee has insisted on including evidence which a witness had clarified was not in response to the question being asked. I am disappointed that this has been included, and it is regrettable.
I note that I think there is still a typographical error in the executive summary. It reads that Ms Cody and I do not agree with all the recommendations, when it is simply the case that we do not agree with some and that we do not agree with the second sentence in that paragraph. But rather than printing it all again or doing an addendum, I hope my comments here clarify that. The report, read as a whole, makes that quite patent.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video