Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 12 Hansard (25 November) . . Page.. 3717 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

site. It does not mean that it is necessarily the body that will absolutely and certainly proceed to develop section 56 and part of section 35; it simply means that they are the people who are preferred at this stage to conduct that work if they satisfy the requirements in due course.

That evaluation process was oversighted by a probity adviser who has confirmed that it has been conducted in a fair and equitable manner. There will be opportunities for further community consultation, of course, on the preliminary assessment which must occur, and there is also the very major task of a variation to the Territory Plan which will also involve further community consultation.

Mr Speaker, I have given undertakings to other parties, the unsuccessful consortia in this process, that we would release as much information as we could on the decision-making process in this matter so that people can see the reasons why that process was pursued - at some distance from the Government, I might say - and that it was conducted properly, and the reasons why this particular bid has been preferred over the over two bids.

The amount of information which will come out of that process depends very much on what is commercially confidential about the bids that have been made, but we have warned the parties concerned that we want to put as much information on the table as possible to ensure that there is public understanding of the way in which this process has been pursued. On that basis, I will be providing information at the end of the process - bear in mind it is not finished yet - where we decide on whom will be the actual developer of that site, at the end of the preferred tenderer phase, to satisfy the community, I hope, that this has been a proper process and that the best bid won on the day.

MS TUCKER: I have a supplementary question, Mr Speaker. Well, the answer seems to be a qualified yes, Minister, if I understood what you have said. You are going to release information, although there seemed to be more parameters around what that information will be. I would be interested to know how that actually compares with the information that you released in respect of the Manuka bid.

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, I think it is a different process from the Manuka process. In the Manuka process, for example, I promised to publish details, and did in fact publish details, about each of the bids in a very public way before they were actually considered by the Government. They were displayed, for example, in public places. I think on this occasion there has also been public display of the three consortia and their proposals.

I think we also agreed in advance to publish a report commissioned by the working party within the Government which was considering and assessing the bids, and we in fact did so at the end of that section 41 process. We have not pursued the same process in respect of this matter, but it is possible that much the same information will nonetheless be placed on the public record at the end of this process, depending on the result at the end of that process.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .