Page 112 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 24 May 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
the audit in relation to the Canberra Tourism Development Bureau, which at that time was an arm of the Canberra Development Board.
The audit was commenced in mid-1988 and the report was finalised in early April 1989. The report recommended a range of useful suggestions for the improvement of management and systems within the Canberra Tourism Development Bureau.
PUBLIC SERVICE
MS FOLLETT: Mr Speaker, Mr Collaery further asked me two questions yesterday in which he referred to the circumstances surrounding the redevelopment of two blocks in Turner. He asked in particular whether a former senior Administration official had an interest in the company involved in the transaction, and he inquired whether Mr Keith Lyon had encouraged an inquiry into the matter by the Administration's investigation unit. He also asked about progress on any other inquiries concerning the Lands Branch.
The events referred to in the question took place well before the assumption of office by this Government on 11 May. The Head of Administration has provided me with the following information for the Assembly.
The investigations unit recently made inquiries into the approval of the extension of the terms of two residential leases in Turner in March 1988. The inquiry was initiated by the investigations unit on information supplied by a junior Administration officer. My Lyon did not initiate the inquiry.
The inquiries by the investigations unit revealed that, firstly, in March 1988 the ACT Administration extended the terms of two residential leases in Turner - blocks 2 and 3, section 43 - to 99 years. Mr Tony Hedley, a director of Hamib Pty Limited, the company owning the leases of blocks 2 and 3, section 43, was formerly an officer of the Administration.
Secondly, the extension was made on the basis of incorrect procedures which relied on erroneously handled precedents involving other companies. The officer who took the decision did so on the basis that it was open to Hamib Pty Limited to take action through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal or the courts to obtain the benefit of the erroneous previous action. However, the officer made it clear that this should be the last case handled in this way.
The investigations unit concluded in its report that there was no evidence to suggest that Hamib Pty Limited had been improperly favoured and that there was no suggestion of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .