Page 2805 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 21 November 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
ACTPW then applies specific selection criteria for each individual project. This project is for eight aged persons units on section 22, Ainslie, and was a project carried through from 1988-89 new works program. The architect concerned was originally engaged by the former NCDC to prepare design studies. As a result of his prior involvement he was considered the most appropriate and was appointed as architectural agent for design and documentation of this project.
The engagement is based on a standard fee arrangement, and the architect will at his own expense be using local consulting resources to carry out the contract administration. It is anticipated that the only additional cost will be a reimbursable return air fare from Hobart for the architect to assist in the presentation of the final designs to the ACT Housing Trust, which is accepted practice in such circumstances, the cost of which is considered justified in view of earlier work done on the project.
Canberra Times Site
Mr Whalan: On 14 November 1989 Mr Moore asked me the following question:
In the light of the principles of natural justice established in the judgment effected by the full bench of the High Court of Australia in respect of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v. Peko Wallsend in July 1986, the court ruled ... that where the Minister has received additional submissions from a party he is required, before acting on them, to afford other interested parties an opportunity to answer them. Have you, as a party to the Canberra Times site case, agreed to an adjournment of the hearing until March next year, and are you considering a surrender and regrant of that lease.
He also asked this supplementary question:
The other point about which I am most concerned, Minister, is the Errington principle, an example of which I have just cited, and obviously you are aware of it. Are you intending to apply it by hearing arguments from the opponents of the case, which was not done by the Standing Committee on Planning, Development and Infrastructure.
My response is as follows: Mr Moore asked the question, without notice, on 14 November 1989. I am now in a position to respond, having sought the advice of the Administration.
The answers to the questions are:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .