Those State Libs & their land deals. Is this corruption?

[rocketronnie]

If we could export morons we'd all be billionaires.

[rocketronnie]

I'm wondering whether these land etc will affect overall housing prices in Melbourne. I'm guessing not.

[nomadjack]

I'm no great fan of the Libs or Baillieau Govt but this is nothing more than a media beat up. Shock horror two relatively minor land developers also support the Liberal Party and have donated funds to the party in the past. The fact that the Green Zone boundaries were shifted is no surprise given it was flagged by the Libs as part of the solution for dealing with housing affordability problems. Whenever such rezoning takes place it creates winners and losers and developers essentially gamble by trying to pick where such changes are likely to occur. Two Lib supporting developers gambled correctly and are amongst the winners. However, if anything, the fact that the Age has found only two, and relatively small players at that, suggests that the process has been managed with a fair degree of probity.

The board of the Growth Areas Authority which oversaw the process was appointed by Labor and is independent of government, and as far as I'm aware, there is absolutely no evidence or even suggestions of any corruption in the process. That's not to say that political donations from developers should not be outlawed. But you could mount the same argument for any special interest group which benefits from shifts in government policy.

[Tannin]

^ How can you possibly pretend that mega-million dollar land deals for Liberal donors are "relatively minor changes"? It's hands in bloody pockets from start to bloody finish. Stands out like dogs balls.

[Tannin]

As for this rubbish about "dealing with housing affordability problems", that's absurd too. We have housing problems because the present government and several prior were all hell-bent on increasing the population despite the clearly expressed wishes of the majority of Australians for many years, and all in response to pressure from short-sighted, greedy vested interests who stand to make huge windfall profits from it. This is a classic example.

[nomadjack]

I'm not suggesting the changes are minor or in any way positive. I'm suggesting that the fact that two of the beneficies happen to be relatively minor land developers who also happen to be small potato Liberal supporters is not in itself surprising, nor evidence of corruption.

[Tannin]

This is not the only smoking gun, not by any means -

Lib donors poised to hit paydirt - http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/lib-d ... 1j0j0.html

That was last years corruption scandal - a cool $500 million falling into the laps of people who "just happened" to have donated thousands of dollars to the Liberal Party, and "just happened" to sit next to the Planning Minister at funraisers

This year's rort is just more of the same rotten stuff.

[HAL]

What does "this" refer to?

[nomadjack]

This year's rort is just more of the same rotten stuff.

You're right about it being 'the same rotten stuff'. The deal in the article you posted from last year is one of the two mentioned in the more recent article. Developers lobbying politicians is hardly a new phenomenon nor does it constitute corruption. Bottom line is that the independent advisory committee appointed by Labor is the group that makes the decision which is then signed off by the minister. The fact that the decision is favourable to the interests of a developer and that the developer is a small time donor and supporter of the Libs is not in itself exceptional. Nor is it evidence of endemic corruption in the process or even of corruption in this case.

[Tannin]

These scumbag politicians are handing out vast fortunes to their friends and that is "not even evidence of corruption"? Of course it is.

Undisputed fact #1: these developers are going to make vast fortunes, truly staggering amounts of money

Undisputed fact #2: these developers are donors to the Liberal Party

Undisputed fact #3: the minister and his cronies, having benefited from the donations and the fundraising dinners and all the rest of it, have now signed off on the land rezoning required to put these vast fortunes back into the donors' pockets.

It's not hard to join the dots.

Never mind all the spin and the window-dressing for public consumption, the basic facts are that these green wedges were set up for the future good of this state by former government and supported by all governments since that time, and the present government - run by a former real estate agent - has white-anted that future benefit in order to enrich its friends, supporters and donors.

[watt price tully]

This year's rort is just more of the same rotten stuff.

You're right about it being 'the same rotten stuff'. The deal in the article you posted from last year is one of the two mentioned in the more recent article. Developers lobbying politicians is hardly a new phenomenon nor does it constitute corruption. Bottom line is that the independent advisory committee appointed by Labor is the group that makes the decision which is then signed off by the minister. The fact that the decision is favourable to the interests of a developer and that the developer is a small time donor and supporter of the Libs is not in itself exceptional. Nor is it evidence of endemic corruption in the process or even of corruption in this case.

In NSW I understand in state politics they've banned developers from contributing to party coffers so as the process apparently is not only meant to be "not" corrupt but seen to be "not" corrupt.

[nomadjack]

^
Undisputed fact #4. The decision about which land is released is made by an independent body appointed by the previous government which has absolutely nothing to gain from currying favour with the developers concerned or the government.

Undisputed fact #5. The process is also overseen by the State Auditor General

Undisputed fact #6. Many developers who are not donors to the Libs or who traditionally have donated to both major parties will also benefit.

Undisputed fact #7. You can paint any picture you want by joining the dots which suit your argument and ignoring those that don't.

Again, not defending the policy, but to call the process and outcome corrupt without evidence when the pivotal decision-making body is an independent council is just silly.

[Tannin]

Bahh. The minister decides which recommendations to accept and which ones to reject! And the government gives te committee its instructions. And being appointed by Brumby's lot is no guarantee of purity - far from it. they had their snouts in the land deal trough too, they just weren't so blatant about it.

[Tannin]

The smoking gun is a bloody cannon -

Developers and land owners who tipped thousands of dollars into Liberal Party coffers at the last state election are among the big winners .....One of the single biggest beneficiaries ... is Narre Warren-based developer Parklea...... Mr Guy announced that 350 hectares of farmland it owns at Pakenham would become metropolitan Melbourne's most south-eastern tip. ..... chief executive Andrew Facey ... an enthusiastic Liberal supporter. He said he had contributed thousands of dollars to the Liberals ahead of the 2010 election, had attended numerous fund-raisers and was a member of Liberal fund-raising bodies ..... Last year The Age outed the Berwick Ranges among a string of such clubs that had breached electoral laws by failing to declare themselves to the Australian Electoral Commission. Mr Facey also told The Age that he had given thousands of dollars ... MP Brad Battin. The inclusion of Parklea's property will allow the developer to transform farmland into housing worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

There is any amount more of this stuff. I can smell the deal from way over here on the other side of the state.

More here: Liberal donors win big from rezoning http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politi ... 20am6.html

[nomadjack]

Bahh. The minister decides which recommendations to accept and which ones to reject! And the government gives te committee its instructions. And being appointed by Brumby's lot is no guarantee of purity - far from it. they had their snouts in the land deal trough too, they just weren't so blatant about it.

Tannin, you're either being disengenuous or don't understand how the process was conducted. The only land considered for inclusion in this latest round of boundary expansions was land that had been put forward in the 2009 boundary review commisioned by Brumby, ie prior to the Lib government coming to power (which I might add it did unexpectedly). Proposals were reviewed by two separate independent expert bodies (again, appointed by the previous ALP government and with nothing to gain by currying favour with Liberal leaning developers), with the whole process vetted by an independent probity auditor, and ultimately by the Auditor General. The Ministers response to these independent recommendations doesn't deviate at all from what they proposed - ie the recommendations were accepted without question.

You can question the policy outcome and the reasoning behind it all you like and Bahhh until you're surrounded by little wooly friends, but it won't change the facts.