30 September 2016

Auditor-General issues damning report on LDA deals

| Charlotte
Join the conversation
51
LDA

The Land Development Agency’s processes lacked “transparency, accountability and rigour” in relation to the acquisition of land adjacent to Glebe Park and Mr Spokes Bike Hire and Dobel Boat Hire at Acton, the ACT Auditor-General has found, adding that she is considering undertaking a broader audit of the organisation.

Dr Maxine Cooper has today presented a performance audit report entitled Certain Land Development Agency Acquisitions to the Speaker for tabling in the ACT Legislative Assembly, and its findings are damning.

Dr Cooper says ‘Transparency, accountability and rigour have been lacking in the processes used by the Land Development Agency for the acquisition of three properties and two businesses considered in the audit. Without these the integrity and probity of the acquisition process cannot be demonstrated.’

The acquisitions in question were of:

• Block 24, Section 65, City (land adjacent to Glebe Park) – for $3.8 million
• Block 13, Section 33, Acton (Mr Spokes Bike Hire) – for $1.1 million (and $1.00 for the associated business and $52,338 for owners’ costs associated for the preparation of the deed of surrender)
• Block 16, Section 33, Acton (Dobel Boat Hire) – for $1.0 million and Lake Burley Griffin Boat Hire (a business which operated under a sub-lease from Dobel Boat Hire) – for $575,000 (and $10,000 as a contribution for legal and accounting fees and $16,387 to settle unpaid rent payable to Dobel Boat Hire)

Dr Cooper said the report had found administrative issues related to sourcing professional advice, procurement for contractors and the approval process for making acquisitions.

“While the number of acquisitions considered were few, given the significance of the findings I am considering undertaking a broader audit on the Land Development Agency,” she said.

LDA CEO David Dawes said he would not be resigning over the report’s findings.

“I’m looking forward to carrying on and implementing the new processes that are highlighted in the Auditor-General’s report and working with the new government in the future,” he said.

“I’m standing here firm.”

Asked about the manipulation of a freedom of information response cited in the report*, he said he knew nothing about it at the time it occurred.

“When we were going through the processes we discovered that something had been altered,” he said.

“That is just unacceptable. We immediately raised it with our investigation officer, an investigation was conducted, and that particular officer has been counselled, and that sort of behaviour won’t happen again.”

Mr Dawes said decisions related to the payments in question were made by him or by other LDA officers and had not been taken to the Minister responsible or to cabinet.

He acknowledged the report highlighted the need for improvement in the LDA’s processes to ensure the highest level of accountability and transparency, and said that since the audited land acquisitions occurred in early to mid-2015, the LDA had made significant structural, staffing and process changes that address and in some cases go beyond, the Auditor General’s findings and recommendations.

The changes included restructure of the City to the Lake project team and its composition and establishment of robust governance arrangements; centralisation of processes for obtaining valuations to ensure high standards and consistency; re-establishment of ‘in-house’ Corporate and Governance services to support the effective operation of the LDA; and increased procurement training for all staff.

In addition the former Australian Auditor-General, Mr Ian McPhee, had been engaged to undertake a Governance Framework Review for the LDA and the broader Economic Development.

“The Auditor General has recognised the difficulties of making commercial purchases in an open market transaction and has highlighted a number of process improvements that need to be made to ensure accountability during these complex transactions,” Mr Dawes said.

“The purchase of the properties involved was essential for the implementation of the City to the Lake project. I am satisfied the prices paid for these acquisitions were reasonable, appropriate and necessary to allow this key government priority to progress.”

The Canberra Liberals have announced they would conduct a full review of the LDA if elected. Labor this week committed to splitting urban renewal, which would include responsibility for the City to the Lake project, off from the LDA to be overseen by a new body.

The full report, Certain Land Development Agency Acquisitions: Report No. 7/2016, is available online here.

* From the report on the FOI matter:
The Land Development Agency received a Freedom of Information request on 5 November 2015 in relation to the acquisition of Block 24, Section 65, City (land adjacent to Glebe Park). A Land Development Agency senior manager (now executive) provided a document to Land Development Agency officers responding to this request which had only been created after the Freedom of Information request was received. The title of the Colliers International Block 24, Section 65, Division of City ‘Glebe Park Land’ May 2015 Discussion Paper was amended by the Principal of Colliers International from ‘Discussion Paper’ to ‘Valuation Advice’ on 12 November 2015 and accepted by the Land Development Agency senior manager (now executive). This document was provided in response to the Freedom of Information request received by the Land Development Agency on 5 November 2015. Submitting manipulated information in response to a Freedom of information request is unacceptable.

Join the conversation

51
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
Latest

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

justin heywood said :

On a reading of the full report, the offence described (amending the title of a document under FOI) appears innocuous enough, although even an amateur like me knows that is verboten.

But the relationship between the LDA and Colliers is interesting.

Colliers, a major player in foreshore development, provides informal ‘advice’ and ‘mentoring’ on ‘supply and demand pricing’

to the LDA – all free of charge, (4.181-4.187).

If nothing else, could the LDA executives not see how this would look? Didn’t they care?
There must be a better way to do it.

The LDA, owned by the ACT Government is also selling the land it owns for the FOY plastic recycling plant at Couranga Crescent, Hume and the same government is approving its siting there.

Isn’t that a conflict of interest?

So how should it work, especially when the government owns all the land (except of course the land the feds own) and is the planning authority? I fail to see how it could work any other way.

And apart from it being over your back fence, what exactly is the issue, real or otherwise with this proposal that is leading to a conflict of interest or even the perception of a conflict of interest?

If you can’t see the conflict of interest then you are part of the problem.
Quite simply, the government should not be involved in any type of business that competes with the private sector.

How many more Rhodiums, Transacts and Better Places can the ratepayers afford The LDA only survives because it has total control of land supply and sale in the Territory and this is unhealthy along with the nepotism and unholy alliances that it creates.

Additionally, LDA pays nothing for the land and nothing for the holding costs. It’s purpose appears to be none other than keeping prices at almost unaffordable levels to maximise revenue for the current Labor government.

En globo land in the Territory should be sold to the private sector and the laws of supply and demand should determine the selling prices in a competitive environment.
And we don’t need a massive bureaucracy to do that.

Couple of issues, without a LDA or equivalent how does the government sell land to private developers? You need a government agency to manage the sales!

Second issue do you really think selling to private developers will result in cheaper prices? Seriously go look at the cost of land in Denman Prospect which is being developed by a private developer, vis the Snow family. Or indeed compare historic land sales in Casey. North of Yeend ave is the ‘Springbank’ rise development which was done by Lend Lease and south of that was the LDA. And parts were developed at the same time so should be able to give you some like for like comparisons.

Oh and unaffordable? Agree it is expensive, but the land is being sold, so someone must have the money to buy and hence afford it!

Anyway all really moot in the example that you were talking about which is the proposed plastic to fuel facility in Hume. I am yet to see any evidence of wrong doing in having the LDA selling land in an industrial suburb for industrial purposes being a conflict of interest. Which was your argument.

The conflict of interest is that the ACT Government owns the land, its directorate (LDA) is selling it, its EPA directorate will approve its environmental credentials and the ACT Government will then approve its construction and operation (with the CFMEU’s blessing, of course).

This project threatens to become Koppers Logs 2.0. Ironic how the recycling plant will be next door to where Koppers Logs was (the legacy is still there).

Read what Simon Corbell said about Koppers a couple of years ago: http://www.2cc.net.au/localnews/779-act-government-koppers-site-in-hume-poses-no-risk-to-canberrans-or-environment.html

Now read the full story here:http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/revealed-timber-treatment-plants-toxic-legacy-20140324-35eiy.html

So your point is that it’s a conflict of interest that the government owns all of the land in the ACT as well as writing the planning legislation that defines how it’s used.

Note, that your assertion that the planning authority will simply “approve” the development is ridiculous, they simply apply the current legislation to proposed developments.

Exactly how do you think it’s possible for the government to remove this conflict of interest, whilst still remaining a government?

“…..apply the current legislation ……”

The government controls this function too.

JC said :

Nothing what so ever to do with the Westminster system of government. What I think is the government should do something about the LDA as it appears they are operating contrary to the directions given to them by the government. If the responsible government minister fails to act then yes that minister has something to answer for, however unless I am mistaken the responsible minister has acted as a result of the findings from the auditor general. Or are they maybe not acting quick enough for you by sacking people without going through proper process, or do you maybe want to make a point out of it for political gain. The later is what is wrong with this country, too much comes down to playing politics, point scoring and trying to get scalps. And yes both (all actually) sides do that.

Accountability and responsibility of Ministers are corner stones of the Westminster system. Barr, as Planning Minister (or what ever it is), should have known whats going on within the LDA for goodness sakes. It was a damming Auditor Generals report that certainly should not have out of the blue. The point is that the LDA is obviously over stepping the mark by paying mega bucks more than necessary to buy up blocks of land to facilitate as quickly as possible, Ministers (Barr’s) “vision” for things like the City to Lake project. This is the same LDA that is drip feeding the release of blocks of land for obvious reasons, including increasing Annual Rates revenues.

If you think that wanting accountability by Ministers on how their Departments/Agencies are run and demanding good decision making by Govt is “political point scoring”, and if that’s how the average ACT voter/ratepayers thinks, then we are all stuffed.

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

justin heywood said :

On a reading of the full report, the offence described (amending the title of a document under FOI) appears innocuous enough, although even an amateur like me knows that is verboten.

But the relationship between the LDA and Colliers is interesting.

Colliers, a major player in foreshore development, provides informal ‘advice’ and ‘mentoring’ on ‘supply and demand pricing’

to the LDA – all free of charge, (4.181-4.187).

If nothing else, could the LDA executives not see how this would look? Didn’t they care?
There must be a better way to do it.

The LDA, owned by the ACT Government is also selling the land it owns for the FOY plastic recycling plant at Couranga Crescent, Hume and the same government is approving its siting there.

Isn’t that a conflict of interest?

So how should it work, especially when the government owns all the land (except of course the land the feds own) and is the planning authority? I fail to see how it could work any other way.

And apart from it being over your back fence, what exactly is the issue, real or otherwise with this proposal that is leading to a conflict of interest or even the perception of a conflict of interest?

If you can’t see the conflict of interest then you are part of the problem.
Quite simply, the government should not be involved in any type of business that competes with the private sector.

How many more Rhodiums, Transacts and Better Places can the ratepayers afford The LDA only survives because it has total control of land supply and sale in the Territory and this is unhealthy along with the nepotism and unholy alliances that it creates.

Additionally, LDA pays nothing for the land and nothing for the holding costs. It’s purpose appears to be none other than keeping prices at almost unaffordable levels to maximise revenue for the current Labor government.

En globo land in the Territory should be sold to the private sector and the laws of supply and demand should determine the selling prices in a competitive environment.
And we don’t need a massive bureaucracy to do that.

Couple of issues, without a LDA or equivalent how does the government sell land to private developers? You need a government agency to manage the sales!

Second issue do you really think selling to private developers will result in cheaper prices? Seriously go look at the cost of land in Denman Prospect which is being developed by a private developer, vis the Snow family. Or indeed compare historic land sales in Casey. North of Yeend ave is the ‘Springbank’ rise development which was done by Lend Lease and south of that was the LDA. And parts were developed at the same time so should be able to give you some like for like comparisons.

Oh and unaffordable? Agree it is expensive, but the land is being sold, so someone must have the money to buy and hence afford it!

Anyway all really moot in the example that you were talking about which is the proposed plastic to fuel facility in Hume. I am yet to see any evidence of wrong doing in having the LDA selling land in an industrial suburb for industrial purposes being a conflict of interest. Which was your argument.

The conflict of interest is that the ACT Government owns the land, its directorate (LDA) is selling it, its EPA directorate will approve its environmental credentials and the ACT Government will then approve its construction and operation (with the CFMEU’s blessing, of course).

This project threatens to become Koppers Logs 2.0. Ironic how the recycling plant will be next door to where Koppers Logs was (the legacy is still there).

Read what Simon Corbell said about Koppers a couple of years ago: http://www.2cc.net.au/localnews/779-act-government-koppers-site-in-hume-poses-no-risk-to-canberrans-or-environment.html

Now read the full story here:http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/revealed-timber-treatment-plants-toxic-legacy-20140324-35eiy.html

So your point is that it’s a conflict of interest that the government owns all of the land in the ACT as well as writing the planning legislation that defines how it’s used.

Note, that your assertion that the planning authority will simply “approve” the development is ridiculous, they simply apply the current legislation to proposed developments.

Exactly how do you think it’s possible for the government to remove this conflict of interest, whilst still remaining a government?

justin heywood said :

So let me understand your point. As a concerned citizen, you posted something the Libs did which ‘didn’t pass the sniff test’ for you.

It didn’t pass the sniff test of the NSW ICAC either.

rommeldog56 said :

JC said :

In this case the right seems to want to be blaming ministers and play politics over what is an administrative issue.

So you think that the Head of the LDA and Minister Barr are not responsible or accountable for the administration of the LDA. Got it. So much for the Westminster system of Government.

Nothing what so ever to do with the Westminster system of government. What I think is the government should do something about the LDA as it appears they are operating contrary to the directions given to them by the government. If the responsible government minister fails to act then yes that minister has something to answer for, however unless I am mistaken the responsible minister has acted as a result of the findings from the auditor general. Or are they maybe not acting quick enough for you by sacking people without going through proper process, or do you maybe want to make a point out of it for political gain.

The later is what is wrong with this country, too much comes down to playing politics, point scoring and trying to get scalps. And yes both (all actually) sides do that.

dungfungus said :

JC said :

justin heywood said :

Consider, JC, if your political opponents (the Libs) were in power. Would you still consider there to be no risk?

Consider if the Libs were in power, would you still be baying for blood?

And never mind of course the links that private land developers have with the Liberal party nationally and indeed in the ACT. Including NSW developers with no connection or developments in the ACT donating to the ACT branch, who are then generous and rich enough to donate money to their NSW brethren. Where of course donations from developers is banned.

Certainly doesn’t pass the sniff test does it? But bet you, Dungers and Co wont say a bad word about it…

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-14/sydney-property-developers-donating-to-act-liberal-party/7626854

While I don’t condone any of this it appears that no charges are ensuing.

The amounts involved are chicken-feed compared to past donations of hundreds of thousands of dollars generated from Labor Clubs and te one of $1.4 million made to the Greens by a businessman (not to mention the trade unions).

Oh some it comes down to the amount (or lets say the severity of the issue) not the fact that it appears money was laundered through the ACT branch to the NSW branch? Or that Mr Coe defends it saying the money was for the Federal election and not the ACT election and that it is a storm in a tea cup?

dungfungus said :

The conflict of interest is that the ACT Government owns the land, its directorate (LDA) is selling it, its EPA directorate will approve its environmental credentials and the ACT Government will then approve its construction and operation (with the CFMEU’s blessing, of course).

This project threatens to become Koppers Logs 2.0. Ironic how the recycling plant will be next door to where Koppers Logs was (the legacy is still there).

Read what Simon Corbell said about Koppers a couple of years ago: http://www.2cc.net.au/localnews/779-act-government-koppers-site-in-hume-poses-no-risk-to-canberrans-or-environment.html

Now read the full story here:http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/revealed-timber-treatment-plants-toxic-legacy-20140324-35eiy.html

So how can it work in any other way? We have ONE Government, they own the land, they sell the land, they approve developments. Who do you think is or should be doing that?

And as for this proposal I have no opinion either way, but conflict of interest nah. If the land isn’t used for this purpose it will be used for something else anyway. Unless of course you are accusing the government or individuals in the LDA of accepting underhand payments.

JC said :

justin heywood said :

Consider, JC, if your political opponents (the Libs) were in power. Would you still consider there to be no risk?

Consider if the Libs were in power, would you still be baying for blood?

And never mind of course the links that private land developers have with the Liberal party nationally and indeed in the ACT. Including NSW developers with no connection or developments in the ACT donating to the ACT branch, who are then generous and rich enough to donate money to their NSW brethren. Where of course donations from developers is banned.

Certainly doesn’t pass the sniff test does it? But bet you, Dungers and Co wont say a bad word about it…

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-14/sydney-property-developers-donating-to-act-liberal-party/7626854

While I don’t condone any of this it appears that no charges are ensuing.

The amounts involved are chicken-feed compared to past donations of hundreds of thousands of dollars generated from Labor Clubs and te one of $1.4 million made to the Greens by a businessman (not to mention the trade unions).

JC said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

justin heywood said :

On a reading of the full report, the offence described (amending the title of a document under FOI) appears innocuous enough, although even an amateur like me knows that is verboten.

But the relationship between the LDA and Colliers is interesting.

Colliers, a major player in foreshore development, provides informal ‘advice’ and ‘mentoring’ on ‘supply and demand pricing’

to the LDA – all free of charge, (4.181-4.187).

If nothing else, could the LDA executives not see how this would look? Didn’t they care?
There must be a better way to do it.

The LDA, owned by the ACT Government is also selling the land it owns for the FOY plastic recycling plant at Couranga Crescent, Hume and the same government is approving its siting there.

Isn’t that a conflict of interest?

So how should it work, especially when the government owns all the land (except of course the land the feds own) and is the planning authority? I fail to see how it could work any other way.

And apart from it being over your back fence, what exactly is the issue, real or otherwise with this proposal that is leading to a conflict of interest or even the perception of a conflict of interest?

If you can’t see the conflict of interest then you are part of the problem.
Quite simply, the government should not be involved in any type of business that competes with the private sector.

How many more Rhodiums, Transacts and Better Places can the ratepayers afford The LDA only survives because it has total control of land supply and sale in the Territory and this is unhealthy along with the nepotism and unholy alliances that it creates.

Additionally, LDA pays nothing for the land and nothing for the holding costs. It’s purpose appears to be none other than keeping prices at almost unaffordable levels to maximise revenue for the current Labor government.

En globo land in the Territory should be sold to the private sector and the laws of supply and demand should determine the selling prices in a competitive environment.
And we don’t need a massive bureaucracy to do that.

Couple of issues, without a LDA or equivalent how does the government sell land to private developers? You need a government agency to manage the sales!

Second issue do you really think selling to private developers will result in cheaper prices? Seriously go look at the cost of land in Denman Prospect which is being developed by a private developer, vis the Snow family. Or indeed compare historic land sales in Casey. North of Yeend ave is the ‘Springbank’ rise development which was done by Lend Lease and south of that was the LDA. And parts were developed at the same time so should be able to give you some like for like comparisons.

Oh and unaffordable? Agree it is expensive, but the land is being sold, so someone must have the money to buy and hence afford it!

Anyway all really moot in the example that you were talking about which is the proposed plastic to fuel facility in Hume. I am yet to see any evidence of wrong doing in having the LDA selling land in an industrial suburb for industrial purposes being a conflict of interest. Which was your argument.

The conflict of interest is that the ACT Government owns the land, its directorate (LDA) is selling it, its EPA directorate will approve its environmental credentials and the ACT Government will then approve its construction and operation (with the CFMEU’s blessing, of course).

This project threatens to become Koppers Logs 2.0. Ironic how the recycling plant will be next door to where Koppers Logs was (the legacy is still there).

Read what Simon Corbell said about Koppers a couple of years ago: http://www.2cc.net.au/localnews/779-act-government-koppers-site-in-hume-poses-no-risk-to-canberrans-or-environment.html

Now read the full story here:http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/revealed-timber-treatment-plants-toxic-legacy-20140324-35eiy.html

JC said :

In this case the right seems to want to be blaming ministers and play politics over what is an administrative issue.

So you think that the Head of the LDA and Minister Barr are not responsible or accountable for the administration of the LDA. Got it. So much for the Westminster system of Government.

justin heywood10:41 pm 06 Oct 16

JC said :

justin heywood said :

Consider, JC, if your political opponents (the Libs) were in power. Would you still consider there to be no risk?

Consider if the Libs were in power, would you still be baying for blood?

And never mind of course the links that private land developers have with the Liberal party nationally and indeed in the ACT. Including NSW developers with no connection or developments in the ACT donating to the ACT branch, who are then generous and rich enough to donate money to their NSW brethren. Where of course donations from developers is banned.

Certainly doesn’t pass the sniff test does it? But bet you, Dungers and Co wont say a bad word about it…

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-14/sydney-property-developers-donating-to-act-liberal-party/7626854

So let me understand your point. As a concerned citizen, you posted something the Libs did which ‘didn’t pass the sniff test’ for you. Nobody happened to comment on your post.

Someone else (the Auditor-General in fact) issues a ‘damning report’ against your team and you’re all “move along people, nothing to see here'”

Nobody is ‘baying for blood’ that I can see. But we punters are perfectly entitled to comment on the report, which incidentally raises questions beyond the FOI document issue.

JC said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

justin heywood said :

On a reading of the full report, the offence described (amending the title of a document under FOI) appears innocuous enough, although even an amateur like me knows that is verboten.

But the relationship between the LDA and Colliers is interesting.

Colliers, a major player in foreshore development, provides informal ‘advice’ and ‘mentoring’ on ‘supply and demand pricing’

to the LDA – all free of charge, (4.181-4.187).

If nothing else, could the LDA executives not see how this would look? Didn’t they care?
There must be a better way to do it.

The LDA, owned by the ACT Government is also selling the land it owns for the FOY plastic recycling plant at Couranga Crescent, Hume and the same government is approving its siting there.

Isn’t that a conflict of interest?

So how should it work, especially when the government owns all the land (except of course the land the feds own) and is the planning authority? I fail to see how it could work any other way.

And apart from it being over your back fence, what exactly is the issue, real or otherwise with this proposal that is leading to a conflict of interest or even the perception of a conflict of interest?

If you can’t see the conflict of interest then you are part of the problem.
Quite simply, the government should not be involved in any type of business that competes with the private sector.

How many more Rhodiums, Transacts and Better Places can the ratepayers afford The LDA only survives because it has total control of land supply and sale in the Territory and this is unhealthy along with the nepotism and unholy alliances that it creates.

Additionally, LDA pays nothing for the land and nothing for the holding costs. It’s purpose appears to be none other than keeping prices at almost unaffordable levels to maximise revenue for the current Labor government.

En globo land in the Territory should be sold to the private sector and the laws of supply and demand should determine the selling prices in a competitive environment.
And we don’t need a massive bureaucracy to do that.

Couple of issues, without a LDA or equivalent how does the government sell land to private developers? You need a government agency to manage the sales!

Second issue do you really think selling to private developers will result in cheaper prices? Seriously go look at the cost of land in Denman Prospect which is being developed by a private developer, vis the Snow family. Or indeed compare historic land sales in Casey. North of Yeend ave is the ‘Springbank’ rise development which was done by Lend Lease and south of that was the LDA. And parts were developed at the same time so should be able to give you some like for like comparisons.

Oh and unaffordable? Agree it is expensive, but the land is being sold, so someone must have the money to buy and hence afford it!

Anyway all really moot in the example that you were talking about which is the proposed plastic to fuel facility in Hume. I am yet to see any evidence of wrong doing in having the LDA selling land in an industrial suburb for industrial purposes being a conflict of interest. Which was your argument.

If we need a government agency to handle land sales in the Territory, why is the said agency outsourcing this function to a private real estate company?
http://www.mmj.com.au/7P0298

rommeldog56 said :

JC said :

Depends upon the severity of the change. Changing the title, repeat a title on a document, which was the offence, hardly something that is a sackable offence for the officer or something that the government minister somehow had control, or prior knowledge over.

No one can or should change the title on any official document, let alone one that was requested under FOI.

Don’t disagree. But my point remains the severity of the ‘punishment’ should match the severity of the ‘offence’.

In this case the right seems to want to be blaming ministers and play politics over what is an administrative issue.

Oh and here is a link to the same issue I mentioned above (ACT libs accepting donations from NSW developers who have no developments in the ACT and then donating money to their NSW brethern).

Interestingly even though that was posted over a month ago, not one response to it calling for investigations, sackings and mass hangings.

http://the-riotact.com/icac-report-in-nsw-put-pressure-on-libs/183698

justin heywood said :

Consider, JC, if your political opponents (the Libs) were in power. Would you still consider there to be no risk?

Consider if the Libs were in power, would you still be baying for blood?

And never mind of course the links that private land developers have with the Liberal party nationally and indeed in the ACT. Including NSW developers with no connection or developments in the ACT donating to the ACT branch, who are then generous and rich enough to donate money to their NSW brethren. Where of course donations from developers is banned.

Certainly doesn’t pass the sniff test does it? But bet you, Dungers and Co wont say a bad word about it…

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-14/sydney-property-developers-donating-to-act-liberal-party/7626854

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

justin heywood said :

On a reading of the full report, the offence described (amending the title of a document under FOI) appears innocuous enough, although even an amateur like me knows that is verboten.

But the relationship between the LDA and Colliers is interesting.

Colliers, a major player in foreshore development, provides informal ‘advice’ and ‘mentoring’ on ‘supply and demand pricing’

to the LDA – all free of charge, (4.181-4.187).

If nothing else, could the LDA executives not see how this would look? Didn’t they care?
There must be a better way to do it.

The LDA, owned by the ACT Government is also selling the land it owns for the FOY plastic recycling plant at Couranga Crescent, Hume and the same government is approving its siting there.

Isn’t that a conflict of interest?

So how should it work, especially when the government owns all the land (except of course the land the feds own) and is the planning authority? I fail to see how it could work any other way.

And apart from it being over your back fence, what exactly is the issue, real or otherwise with this proposal that is leading to a conflict of interest or even the perception of a conflict of interest?

If you can’t see the conflict of interest then you are part of the problem.
Quite simply, the government should not be involved in any type of business that competes with the private sector.

How many more Rhodiums, Transacts and Better Places can the ratepayers afford The LDA only survives because it has total control of land supply and sale in the Territory and this is unhealthy along with the nepotism and unholy alliances that it creates.

Additionally, LDA pays nothing for the land and nothing for the holding costs. It’s purpose appears to be none other than keeping prices at almost unaffordable levels to maximise revenue for the current Labor government.

En globo land in the Territory should be sold to the private sector and the laws of supply and demand should determine the selling prices in a competitive environment.
And we don’t need a massive bureaucracy to do that.

Couple of issues, without a LDA or equivalent how does the government sell land to private developers? You need a government agency to manage the sales!

Second issue do you really think selling to private developers will result in cheaper prices? Seriously go look at the cost of land in Denman Prospect which is being developed by a private developer, vis the Snow family. Or indeed compare historic land sales in Casey. North of Yeend ave is the ‘Springbank’ rise development which was done by Lend Lease and south of that was the LDA. And parts were developed at the same time so should be able to give you some like for like comparisons.

Oh and unaffordable? Agree it is expensive, but the land is being sold, so someone must have the money to buy and hence afford it!

Anyway all really moot in the example that you were talking about which is the proposed plastic to fuel facility in Hume. I am yet to see any evidence of wrong doing in having the LDA selling land in an industrial suburb for industrial purposes being a conflict of interest. Which was your argument.

JC said :

Depends upon the severity of the change. Changing the title, repeat a title on a document, which was the offence, hardly something that is a sackable offence for the officer or something that the government minister somehow had control, or prior knowledge over.

No one can or should change the title on any official document, let alone one that was requested under FOI.

rommeldog56 said :

JC said :

It is of course reliant on said public servants realising there is an issue. Ministers are not mind readers, nor are they roaming the offices of the agencies they are responsible for listening for any potential bad press.

And to look at the Glebe park issue, it seems clear that the person who made the decision thought (maybe wrongly) that it was within his powers to do as he did. So to me the ‘blame’, if it really does need to be attributed lies with that person. Also it is still to be said whether the deal was actually the right or wrong one. Obviously in an election year, political point scoring and backside protection ends up taking precedence.

Ministers and Department/Agency/Authority heads are responsible for what happens in their portfolio Agencies. To categorise the changing of a document that was to be released under FOI as some sort of clerical error is absurd. It is and should be a sackable offence. It defies belief that it was not deliberate.

In your usual vest to defend or water down anything controversial done by this ACT Labor/Greens Govt, what you are advocating by “blaming the officer” (which is correct in itself), is zero responsibility by Ministers (in this case, the Chief Minister) and the LDA Head for accountability. So much for “accountability” – but not surprising given the poor quality of Governance in the ACT.

Depends upon the severity of the change. Changing the title, repeat a title on a document, which was the offence, hardly something that is a sackable offence for the officer or something that the government minister somehow had control, or prior knowledge over.

justin heywood said :

What? You can’t see a potential problem in LDA executives having informal ‘catch-ups’ with a major foreshore developer to to be ‘mentored’ on valuations?

It wouldn’t be the first time that a government agency (and the taxpayer) came off second best in their interactions with the big end of town.

Consider, JC, if your political opponents (the Libs) were in power. Would you still consider there to be no risk?

JC is just voicing their support of ACT Labor/Greens who apparently can do no wrong. As I recall, JC also could not see any conflict of interest in (then) TAMS Minister, Megan Fitzharris’s partner being involved in the unsolicited proposal from GWS/Grocon to redevelop Manuka Oval ! We have the ACT Government we deserve……..

justin heywood11:20 am 06 Oct 16

JC said :

So how should it work, especially when the government owns all the land (except of course the land the feds own) and is the planning authority? I fail to see how it could work any other way.

What? You can’t see a potential problem in LDA executives having informal ‘catch-ups’ with a major foreshore developer to to be ‘mentored’ on valuations?

It wouldn’t be the first time that a government agency (and the taxpayer) came off second best in their interactions with the big end of town.

Consider, JC, if your political opponents (the Libs) were in power. Would you still consider there to be no risk?

justin heywood11:11 am 06 Oct 16

creative_canberran said :

This is sadly indicative of a growing trend in media. As we switch more to consumer rather than broadcast media, we find people are preferring an echo chamber of comfortable and agreeable thoughts.

I think most media has always had a bias. But as media sources have fragmented, people can almost ‘live’ in a world where the only media they see is media they are comfortable with.

The amazing aspect is that otherwise intelligent people can spot bias in other media, but claim there is no bias in ‘their’ media.

(Anyway, we’re off track, but this subject is surely worthy of a thread of its own, especially as RiotACT is ‘new media’).

JC said :

dungfungus said :

justin heywood said :

On a reading of the full report, the offence described (amending the title of a document under FOI) appears innocuous enough, although even an amateur like me knows that is verboten.

But the relationship between the LDA and Colliers is interesting.

Colliers, a major player in foreshore development, provides informal ‘advice’ and ‘mentoring’ on ‘supply and demand pricing’

to the LDA – all free of charge, (4.181-4.187).

If nothing else, could the LDA executives not see how this would look? Didn’t they care?
There must be a better way to do it.

The LDA, owned by the ACT Government is also selling the land it owns for the FOY plastic recycling plant at Couranga Crescent, Hume and the same government is approving its siting there.

Isn’t that a conflict of interest?

So how should it work, especially when the government owns all the land (except of course the land the feds own) and is the planning authority? I fail to see how it could work any other way.

And apart from it being over your back fence, what exactly is the issue, real or otherwise with this proposal that is leading to a conflict of interest or even the perception of a conflict of interest?

If you can’t see the conflict of interest then you are part of the problem.
Quite simply, the government should not be involved in any type of business that competes with the private sector.

How many more Rhodiums, Transacts and Better Places can the ratepayers afford The LDA only survives because it has total control of land supply and sale in the Territory and this is unhealthy along with the nepotism and unholy alliances that it creates.

Additionally, LDA pays nothing for the land and nothing for the holding costs. It’s purpose appears to be none other than keeping prices at almost unaffordable levels to maximise revenue for the current Labor government.

En globo land in the Territory should be sold to the private sector and the laws of supply and demand should determine the selling prices in a competitive environment.
And we don’t need a massive bureaucracy to do that.

JC said :

It is of course reliant on said public servants realising there is an issue. Ministers are not mind readers, nor are they roaming the offices of the agencies they are responsible for listening for any potential bad press.

And to look at the Glebe park issue, it seems clear that the person who made the decision thought (maybe wrongly) that it was within his powers to do as he did. So to me the ‘blame’, if it really does need to be attributed lies with that person. Also it is still to be said whether the deal was actually the right or wrong one. Obviously in an election year, political point scoring and backside protection ends up taking precedence.

Ministers and Department/Agency/Authority heads are responsible for what happens in their portfolio Agencies. To categorise the changing of a document that was to be released under FOI as some sort of clerical error is absurd. It is and should be a sackable offence. It defies belief that it was not deliberate.

In your usual vest to defend or water down anything controversial done by this ACT Labor/Greens Govt, what you are advocating by “blaming the officer” (which is correct in itself), is zero responsibility by Ministers (in this case, the Chief Minister) and the LDA Head for accountability. So much for “accountability” – but not surprising given the poor quality of Governance in the ACT.

creative_canberran10:47 pm 05 Oct 16

dungfungus said :

I should have added that I no longer listen to the ABC News add-ons like AM, PM etc because that is where the lefty bias is.

I am not offended by it, I just don’t choose to listen to it. If that means I am narrow-minded then I thank you for the compliment.

This is sadly indicative of a growing trend in media. As we switch more to consumer rather than broadcast media, we find people are preferring an echo chamber of comfortable and agreeable thoughts.

Lefty or not you should seek out a diversity of opinion in news reporting if you are to be an informed citizen.

But on any objective assessment the ABC news output, including that which you have mentioned, is objective an does not have the bias many conservatives accuse it of (nor the right bias many ‘lefties’ accuse it of at other times). I think in many cases, things being relative, such accusations speak more of where an individual is on the political spectrum than on the broadcaster.

MareaFatseas said :

I am mystified about how the responsible politicians did NOT know about the LDA deals. As a former public servant, my experience was that Ministers didn’t like nasty surprises and expected to be briefed about potentially controversial decisions. See my media release at https://www.facebook.com/notes/marea-fatseas-independent-for-kurrajong/media-release-attorney-generals-report-reveals-further-erosion-of-public-trust/641680369344014
Marea Fatseas, Independent for Kurrajong

It is of course reliant on said public servants realising there is an issue. Ministers are not mind readers, nor are they roaming the offices of the agencies they are responsible for listening for any potential bad press.

And the thing that makes me laugh is Liberal supporters in particular like the idea of small government, but to have small government you need to actually give autonomy to those making decisions. Once you start adding in extra layers of oversight and approval, small government then grows to big government.

And to look at the Glebe park issue, it seems clear that the person who made the decision thought (maybe wrongly) that it was within his powers to do as he did. So to me the ‘blame’, if it really does need to be attributed lies with that person. Also it is still to be said whether the deal was actually the right or wrong one. Obviously in an election year, political point scoring and backside protection ends up taking precedence.

dungfungus said :

justin heywood said :

On a reading of the full report, the offence described (amending the title of a document under FOI) appears innocuous enough, although even an amateur like me knows that is verboten.

But the relationship between the LDA and Colliers is interesting.

Colliers, a major player in foreshore development, provides informal ‘advice’ and ‘mentoring’ on ‘supply and demand pricing’

to the LDA – all free of charge, (4.181-4.187).

If nothing else, could the LDA executives not see how this would look? Didn’t they care?
There must be a better way to do it.

The LDA, owned by the ACT Government is also selling the land it owns for the FOY plastic recycling plant at Couranga Crescent, Hume and the same government is approving its siting there.

Isn’t that a conflict of interest?

So how should it work, especially when the government owns all the land (except of course the land the feds own) and is the planning authority? I fail to see how it could work any other way.

And apart from it being over your back fence, what exactly is the issue, real or otherwise with this proposal that is leading to a conflict of interest or even the perception of a conflict of interest?

madelini said :

dungfungus said :

rommeldog56 said :

creative_canberran said :

ABC has a fairly well resourced newsroom, but has to be politically neutral.

The ABC “has to be politically neutral” ??

Thats a laugh. In theory only.

Far too left leaning I’m afraid. You only have to look at Q&A to see that.

Too right!

I only listen to the ABC for news and weather these days. The rest is churned lefty opinion.

Considering that the quote above refers to the news, calling the entire ABC left-wing based on the single example of Q&A (which has a balance between conservative and progressive panellists, and the questions come from various members of the public with differing views) seems narrow-minded.

I believe that their news coverage is relatively even-handed. It is much more balanced than any other news source we have, at the very least. They are critical of both the conservatives and the progressives, but I suppose if you lean more in one direction than the other you are likely to be offended by any perceived slight against your stance, and remain unaware of that towards the other parties.

My definition of “news” is reporting of factual events without spin and opinion added.

I should have added that I no longer listen to the ABC News add-ons like AM, PM etc because that is where the lefty bias is.

I am not offended by it, I just don’t choose to listen to it. If that means I am narrow-minded then I thank you for the compliment.

dungfungus said :

rommeldog56 said :

creative_canberran said :

ABC has a fairly well resourced newsroom, but has to be politically neutral.

The ABC “has to be politically neutral” ??

Thats a laugh. In theory only.

Far too left leaning I’m afraid. You only have to look at Q&A to see that.

Too right!

I only listen to the ABC for news and weather these days. The rest is churned lefty opinion.

Considering that the quote above refers to the news, calling the entire ABC left-wing based on the single example of Q&A (which has a balance between conservative and progressive panellists, and the questions come from various members of the public with differing views) seems narrow-minded.

I believe that their news coverage is relatively even-handed. It is much more balanced than any other news source we have, at the very least. They are critical of both the conservatives and the progressives, but I suppose if you lean more in one direction than the other you are likely to be offended by any perceived slight against your stance, and remain unaware of that towards the other parties.

creative_canberran11:42 am 05 Oct 16

rommeldog56 said :

creative_canberran said :

ABC has a fairly well resourced newsroom, but has to be politically neutral.

The ABC “has to be politically neutral” ??

Thats a laugh. In theory only.

Far too left leaning I’m afraid. You only have to look at Q&A to see that.

And yet independent review after independent review fails to support those accusations. And on any given night social media is ablaze with people calling Uhlmann and Sales Liberal stooges. And the ABC produced that slanderous “comedy” about Gillard.

MareaFatseas10:41 am 05 Oct 16

I am mystified about how the responsible politicians did NOT know about the LDA deals. As a former public servant, my experience was that Ministers didn’t like nasty surprises and expected to be briefed about potentially controversial decisions. See my media release at https://www.facebook.com/notes/marea-fatseas-independent-for-kurrajong/media-release-attorney-generals-report-reveals-further-erosion-of-public-trust/641680369344014
Marea Fatseas, Independent for Kurrajong

rommeldog56 said :

creative_canberran said :

ABC has a fairly well resourced newsroom, but has to be politically neutral.

The ABC “has to be politically neutral” ??

Thats a laugh. In theory only.

Far too left leaning I’m afraid. You only have to look at Q&A to see that.

Too right!

I only listen to the ABC for news and weather these days. The rest is churned lefty opinion.

creative_canberran said :

ABC has a fairly well resourced newsroom, but has to be politically neutral.

The ABC “has to be politically neutral” ?? Thats a laugh. In theory only. Far too left leaning I’m afraid. You only have to look at Q&A to see that.

creative_canberran10:53 pm 04 Oct 16

Heavs said :

It would be interesting to have a quiet chat with Kirsten Lawson about this whole mess. She has been all over it for at least 6 months and been hinting at some very dark goings on for the last three.
We are a town with one newspaper and half a newsroom (ABC) – stuff like this is not getting the light shone on it as it needs to be (and would be in a town with an active local media).

A pox on both houses for not supporting an ICAC.

ABC has a fairly well resourced newsroom, but has to be politically neutral. Canberra Times on the other hand is a faint shadow of its former self. Kristen Lawson is one of the few shining examples left there who carries on the Times’ great tradition of excellent journalism, now largely relegated to history.

justin heywood said :

On a reading of the full report, the offence described (amending the title of a document under FOI) appears innocuous enough, although even an amateur like me knows that is verboten.

But the relationship between the LDA and Colliers is interesting.

Colliers, a major player in foreshore development, provides informal ‘advice’ and ‘mentoring’ on ‘supply and demand pricing’

to the LDA – all free of charge, (4.181-4.187).

If nothing else, could the LDA executives not see how this would look? Didn’t they care?
There must be a better way to do it.

The LDA, owned by the ACT Government is also selling the land it owns for the FOY plastic recycling plant at Couranga Crescent, Hume and the same government is approving its siting there.

Isn’t that a conflict of interest?

justin heywood9:59 pm 04 Oct 16

On a reading of the full report, the offence described (amending the title of a document under FOI) appears innocuous enough, although even an amateur like me knows that is verboten.

But the relationship between the LDA and Colliers is interesting.

Colliers, a major player in foreshore development, provides informal ‘advice’ and ‘mentoring’ on ‘supply and demand pricing’ to the LDA – all free of charge, (4.181-4.187).

If nothing else, could the LDA executives not see how this would look? Didn’t they care?
There must be a better way to do it.

justin heywood7:45 pm 04 Oct 16

Charlotte Harper said :

Both the major parties followed the Greens’ lead in announcing a few weeks back that they will set up an ICAC for the ACT.
…. every democracy needs journalists to hold the powers that be to account, and Canberra could do with a few more.

A Greens initiative that I hope most can agree has got to be a good thing.

I hope there are still more journalists out there willing to investigate and ask the awkward questions rather than promote their own team at the expense of another.

RiotACT has a role in that, and lately I have found the Canberra Times to be much more courageous in its reporting of the goings on at GovCo, which is good for democracy.

The only people complaining are the ones who prefer the old cosy arrangement.

Charlotte Harper2:15 pm 04 Oct 16

Heavs said :

It would be interesting to have a quiet chat with Kirsten Lawson about this whole mess. She has been all over it for at least 6 months and been hinting at some very dark goings on for the last three.
We are a town with one newspaper and half a newsroom (ABC) – stuff like this is not getting the light shone on it as it needs to be (and would be in a town with an active local media).

A pox on both houses for not supporting an ICAC.

Both the major parties followed the Greens’ lead in announcing a few weeks back that they will set up an ICAC for the ACT. The Libs a few days later and Labor last week.
Yes, every democracy needs journalists to hold the powers that be to account, and Canberra could do with a few more.

It would be interesting to have a quiet chat with Kirsten Lawson about this whole mess. She has been all over it for at least 6 months and been hinting at some very dark goings on for the last three.
We are a town with one newspaper and half a newsroom (ABC) – stuff like this is not getting the light shone on it as it needs to be (and would be in a town with an active local media).

A pox on both houses for not supporting an ICAC.

Ian said :

I’d have thought that fudging a document for any reason is sacking material. But in the ACT it seems to get a promotion and a stern talking to.

Painting dead grass green was a fatal error for one politician.

I’d have thought that fudging a document for any reason is sacking material. But in the ACT it seems to get a promotion and a stern talking to.

What was Katie Gallagher’s role in all this, if any? Or Jon Stanhope’s?

HiddenDragon5:49 pm 02 Oct 16

dungfungus said :

creative_canberran said :

rommeldog56 said :

As far as I know, there is no intervention possible at the federal or any other level. Unfortunately, the ACT Gov’t is not like a local council with a Lord Mayer in a State that can be sacked by the State Government.

Actually, it is. The Self-Government Act contains a provision that enables the GG to dissolve the Legislative Assembly and appoint an administrator (called the “Commissioner”) to exercise executive power, if in their opinion the assembly is no longer able to conduct its affairs or has royally stuffed up (I may be paraphrasing a bit there).

The Minister (for Territories) is then required to call an election within a certain time frame.

All this has to be announced to the Federal Parliament along with the reasons after it has occurred, but the GG alone has the power to decide, it’s a function of executive government. Indeed while the Assembly is dissolved, the GG has Executive power in the ACT as well.

Thanks for that important information.
It’s something that I feel we will come to hear more about in the medium / long term as the twice rejected self-government experiment in the ACT has clearly been a disastrous failure.

There are too many conflicts of interests to allow the model being used to work in place like Canberra.

I will leave it to the experts to suggest what else would be better but from my experiences of being here before and after self-government I think the former was next to perfect as you could get.

And it was affordable.

In his ‘Confessions of a Failed Finance Minister’, Peter Walsh describes being confronted by a delegation of Canberrans who were aghast that the Federal Government was not prepared to meet their demands for education funding, and goes on to say that he dropped his opposition to ACT self-government then and there. That sums up, very nicely, the true reasons for “granting” self-government to the ACT, and I would guess that there is now a very firm, and quite bipartisan view on the subject at the federal level (particularly given the utterly predictable federal voting habits of Canberrans).

creative_canberran said :

Actually, it is. The Self-Government Act contains a provision that enables the GG to dissolve the Legislative Assembly and appoint an administrator (called the “Commissioner”) to exercise executive power, if in their opinion the assembly is no longer able to conduct its affairs or has royally stuffed up (I may be paraphrasing a bit there).

The Minister (for Territories) is then required to call an election within a certain time frame.

All this has to be announced to the Federal Parliament along with the reasons after it has occurred, but the GG alone has the power to decide, it’s a function of executive government. Indeed while the Assembly is dissolved, the GG has Executive power in the ACT as well.

Ok. Interesting. I wonder what the trigger(s) would be or what constitutes an assessment by the GG to that end.

No matter, I could never envisage that would happen anyway. Unless of course, the GG is a member of “can the tram”…..LOL…..

creative_canberran said :

rommeldog56 said :

As far as I know, there is no intervention possible at the federal or any other level. Unfortunately, the ACT Gov’t is not like a local council with a Lord Mayer in a State that can be sacked by the State Government.

Actually, it is. The Self-Government Act contains a provision that enables the GG to dissolve the Legislative Assembly and appoint an administrator (called the “Commissioner”) to exercise executive power, if in their opinion the assembly is no longer able to conduct its affairs or has royally stuffed up (I may be paraphrasing a bit there).

The Minister (for Territories) is then required to call an election within a certain time frame.

All this has to be announced to the Federal Parliament along with the reasons after it has occurred, but the GG alone has the power to decide, it’s a function of executive government. Indeed while the Assembly is dissolved, the GG has Executive power in the ACT as well.

Thanks for that important information.
It’s something that I feel we will come to hear more about in the medium / long term as the twice rejected self-government experiment in the ACT has clearly been a disastrous failure.

There are too many conflicts of interests to allow the model being used to work in place like Canberra.

I will leave it to the experts to suggest what else would be better but from my experiences of being here before and after self-government I think the former was next to perfect as you could get.

And it was affordable.

creative_canberran said :

rommeldog56 said :

As far as I know, there is no intervention possible at the federal or any other level. Unfortunately, the ACT Gov’t is not like a local council with a Lord Mayer in a State that can be sacked by the State Government.

Actually, it is. The Self-Government Act contains a provision that enables the GG to dissolve the Legislative Assembly and appoint an administrator (called the “Commissioner”) to exercise executive power, if in their opinion the assembly is no longer able to conduct its affairs or has royally stuffed up (I may be paraphrasing a bit there).

The Minister (for Territories) is then required to call an election within a certain time frame.

All this has to be announced to the Federal Parliament along with the reasons after it has occurred, but the GG alone has the power to decide, it’s a function of executive government. Indeed while the Assembly is dissolved, the GG has Executive power in the ACT as well.

If the GG got a rates notice on the rateable value of his lodge at Yarralumla he would more than “dissolve” the current legislative assembly and given his distinguished military credentials he would probably call out the Army Reserves to get the Territory running again.

It wouldn’t even be necessary to “get the trams to run on time” as they would be the first things to go.

The Territory could be renamed the Grand Duchy Of Molonlgo to keep our links with our Queen (the one in England, that is).

I think it would work.

MERC600 said :

Well it’s certainly a hell of a way to run a guvy business. But what happens now? Do some regulatory mob step in? The local Plod?
The Feds perhaps. They still have some sort of hold over the Territories, although exactly what I’m not sure.

“….a guvy business…..”?

There is no such thing.

The LDA might think it is a business because it makes impressive profits by selling stuff that it gets for free.

That is not how businesses work in the real world.

creative_canberran3:21 pm 02 Oct 16

rommeldog56 said :

As far as I know, there is no intervention possible at the federal or any other level. Unfortunately, the ACT Gov’t is not like a local council with a Lord Mayer in a State that can be sacked by the State Government.

Actually, it is. The Self-Government Act contains a provision that enables the GG to dissolve the Legislative Assembly and appoint an administrator (called the “Commissioner”) to exercise executive power, if in their opinion the assembly is no longer able to conduct its affairs or has royally stuffed up (I may be paraphrasing a bit there).

The Minister (for Territories) is then required to call an election within a certain time frame.

All this has to be announced to the Federal Parliament along with the reasons after it has occurred, but the GG alone has the power to decide, it’s a function of executive government. Indeed while the Assembly is dissolved, the GG has Executive power in the ACT as well.

rommeldog56 said :

MERC600 said :

Well it’s certainly a hell of a way to run a guvy business. But what happens now? Do some regulatory mob step in? The local Plod?
The Feds perhaps. They still have some sort of hold over the Territories, although exactly what I’m not sure.

As far as I know, there is no intervention possible at the federal or any other level. Unfortunately, the ACT Gov’t is not like a local council with a Lord Mayer in a State that can be sacked by the State Government.

The only people who can fix this mess of a Government is ACT voters who will have to elect another party to Govern – preferably in their own right so they don’t have to do “deals” with a minor party as ACT Labor has done with the ACT Greens Rattenburry.

But will they ?????

The “six degrees of separation” theory applied to voting intentions in the ACT works more than anywhere else.

Simply explained, people high up in the ACT PS sector know what side their bread is buttered on and the same people have family who are voters also.

Anyone checked the rate of growth in the ACT PS lately?

MERC600 said :

Well it’s certainly a hell of a way to run a guvy business. But what happens now? Do some regulatory mob step in? The local Plod?
The Feds perhaps. They still have some sort of hold over the Territories, although exactly what I’m not sure.

As far as I know, there is no intervention possible at the federal or any other level. Unfortunately, the ACT Gov’t is not like a local council with a Lord Mayer in a State that can be sacked by the State Government.

The only people who can fix this mess of a Government is ACT voters who will have to elect another party to Govern – preferably in their own right so they don’t have to do “deals” with a minor party as ACT Labor has done with the ACT Greens Rattenburry.

But will they ?????

Well it’s certainly a hell of a way to run a guvy business. But what happens now? Do some regulatory mob step in? The local Plod?
The Feds perhaps. They still have some sort of hold over the Territories, although exactly what I’m not sure.

justin heywood4:37 pm 30 Sep 16

“….Submitting manipulated information in response to a Freedom of information request is unacceptable.”

‘Unacceptable’ ? Is that all?

The Auditor-General could have added the words ‘highly suspicious.’

Would anyone ‘manipulate’ a document for any reason other than to hide something? Merely saying that some unnamed officer was ‘counselled’ does not explain anything.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.