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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 01 Hansard (Thursday, 12 February 2004) . . Page.. 360 ..

(4) The evaluation criteria were detailed in tender documents and evaluation plans for the potential tenderers.

(5) The assessment of tenders was undertaken against evaluation criteria which were priority weighted. Probity and independent financial advice was attained to ensure a comprehensive and detailed evaluation of the submissions. There was a strong field of tenders with 3 shortlisted for presentation. Accessible and affordable child care was a critical consideration in the selection of the preferred submission.

Director of Public Prosecutions
(Question No 1093)

Mr Stefaniak asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 20 November 2003:

In relation to the Director of Public Prosecutions Office:

(1) Is it correct that the Director of Public Prosecutions is subject to a performance measure that requires a certain percentage of prosecutions to be successful each year;

(2) If the answer to (1) is yes, what percentage of prosecutions have to be successful;

(3) Why is such a measure included as a performance measure;

(4) Would the Attorney-General table all relevant documentation in relation to this particular performance measure.

Mr Stanhope: The answer to the member’s question is as follows:

(1) It is not correct.

(2) Not applicable.

(3) Not applicable.

(4) Not applicable.

Police force—call centres
(Question No 1100)

Mr Pratt asked the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, upon notice, on 20 November 2003.

In relation to police call centres:

(1) How many staff were employed by ACT Policing to carry out duties specifically related to ACT Policing call centres in:

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