Page 2180 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 3 August 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
In relation to appropriate funding for the Auditor-General to investigate public interest disclosures, I note in the just tabled Standing Committee on Public Accounts report into the 2016 strategic review of the ACT Auditor-General, the cost of dealing with all representations and the two PID investigations in 2014-15 was $94,751 with a projection of around $158,233 for this purpose in 2015-16 out of a total budget of around $7 million per annum. The government will, of course, seriously and fully consider all committee recommendations in the report in the context of the 2017 budget, subject to the election outcome, of course.
Contrary to the allegations in Mr Hanson’s motion which impugned the motives of investors and of those public officials assessing development proposals, the framework we have put in place to ensure that such proposals are properly and transparently considered is robust and draws on the best practice across the states and territories. But the government has developed a framework for assessing unsolicited proposals. The process gives proponents a channel to present unique and innovative ideas to government in a way that protects their intellectual property but also, importantly, makes sure the government can consider the idea with probity.
We have received 15 unsolicited bids since launching the program in 2013. Of those 15, only six remain active. There are three phases to the process. In the first phase the government receives the proposal and receives an initial assessment to determine whether it meets the purpose and intent of the framework. This phase gives a timely decision on the ACT government’s intent to proceed or not with a more detailed consideration. This assessment is conducted at officials level.
If a proposal makes it to phase 2, the proponent is invited to develop a detailed business case. An assessment panel is convened to formally assess the proposal and to make a recommendation to government on whether or not to proceed with the proposal under a commercial arrangement. Again, this assessment and recommendation is made at the officials level with information presented to government at the end.
If the government agrees to take the proposal forward, phase 3 is where the relevant commercial relationship option is negotiated, again, at officials level. This process surpasses most, if not all, Australian jurisdictions in terms of the rigour applied to the assessment of proposals put to government. All of these accountability and integrity measures have been important reforms. All have served to improve the operations of government in the ACT, but they are, nonetheless, a means to an end, that being the effective governance of the territory for the benefit of the entire community.
The government continues to work hard to make Canberra an even better place to live by strengthening our world-class education and health systems, by planning and delivering an advanced transport network, by supporting the creation of 21st century jobs in a resilient skills-based economy, and by fostering a supportive and inclusive community. We are building the essential transport, health and education infrastructure our growing community needs to ensure the problems facing other cities—like traffic congestion, substandard schools and dilapidated hospitals—are not experienced here in Canberra.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video