Page 2199 - Week 07 - Thursday, 27 August 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
a clear signal that it wanted first right of refusal to prevent its acquisition by a private buyer who had already entered into negotiations with the seller.
There are many irregularities that are highlighted in this report. To summarise them, the LDA had all the cards. It was the dominant player in the ACT property market. It could determine whether a lessee could sell a rural lease to a private buyer or not and it could, in effect, determine who could or could not subdivide their lease. At the same time, it failed to comply with its legislative framework expressly to regulate the agency’s operation in acquiring land where no planning studies had been done. This meant that there was no guarantee that the land would in future be zoned for residential use. While this undoubtedly made the acquisition less expensive for the LDA, it meant that the public was denied the opportunity to consider and comment on significant acquisitions and significant policy initiatives.
During the process, the Chief Minster signed off on two individual acquisitions which had a greater value than $5 million. Under the framework, the LDA needed to have his express permission to purchase such properties. In hearings, Mr Barr told the committee that he did not think that there was anything out of the ordinary; but he must have been aware, based on treasury briefs that would have been included with the paperwork, that this was part of a larger series of acquisitions and that the relevant planning documents were not in place to support them.
There are a number of unanswered questions arising from this inquiry. There is a whole chapter devoted to the very extraordinary means by which an invoice was paid to a private company without authorisation. It is unclear to this day who the person was who initiated the payment of that invoice and approved it, but it certainly did not have the usual sign-offs around it. In addition to the commentary in the Auditor-General’s report, there is significant commentary in this report in relation to the payment of that invoice.
The committee made eight findings, seven of which are unanimous, and there is some dissent from the eighth finding. The committee makes six recommendations. The sixth recommendation is for this report to be referred to the Integrity Commission. It is disappointing that at the last minute the government members of the committee resiled from this recommendation. I think that the narrative of the report clearly points to the fact that there are many unanswered questions.
The committee took the same view in relation to certain land acquisitions conducted by the LDA, which was unanimously agreed should be referred to the commission. The committee does not have the investigatory powers that it needs to delve into the fine detail. That is why we have created another integrity arm, the Integrity Commission.
Notwithstanding the fact that this is not a unanimous recommendation, I did make the point to the committee members, and I will make the point here, that irrespective of whether the letter is signed off by the chair of the public accounts committee or by Vicki Dunne, a member for Ginninderra, there will be a letter going to the Integrity Commission referring this report and our deliberations to the Integrity Commission. I think that it is appropriate that it is referred to the Integrity Commission. There are
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video