Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 12 Hansard (7 December) . . Page.. 3845..
MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):
were other insurers in the ACT marketplace until 1979, but they withdrew because they regarded it as being unprofitable, probably because of the size of the marketplace.
I understand that the former Labor government initiated a review of the scheme in 1993. That was in turn followed by a draft exposure bill tabled by this government in the Assembly to deal with the issues that that earlier review had given rise to. There was, however, a breakdown of agreement between the various stakeholders on the direction of the proposed legislation. In particular, the Insurance Council indicated that other third - party insurers would not be prepared to operate in the ACT unless the ACT scheme substantially mirrored the New South Wales scheme. This would have included restrictions on common law rights, including compensation for road accident victims with less severe injuries.
There is clearly a major issue about what changes to the ACT's insurance environment need to occur in order to encourage other players to take advantage of the compulsory third - party market in the ACT. As I have indicated, there is no restriction preventing other players at the moment.
MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Stanhope asked me yesterday about the sensitivity matrix and comprehensive comparative data in relation to the competing bids of CRI and Lend Lease. As Mr Stanhope knows, Mr Lilley, the then Under Treasurer, indicated in a response during the audit on the Bruce Stadium that there was a sensitivity matrix and comparative data and that subsequently, when a request was made for that information and a search was conducted, the information was not to be found on any of the files.
My advice is that there has been a detailed search of the files. It has not located any documents. In the circumstances I am unable to say from my own state of knowledge whether the documents existed or they did not. All I can say, Mr Speaker, is that the former Under Treasurer indicated that he believed that there were such documents. Whether he was making that statement on the basis of advice or because he actually seen them I cannot say.
MR SMYTH: Mr Speaker, I have additional information for Ms Tucker about a question I took on notice yesterday. The question was about the work of the Wildlife Research and Monitoring Group in assisting the Fern Hill Park joint venture. Factual advice was provided to Enviro Links Design, Yarralumla, comprising a description of vegetation communities, including lists of species, and a problem weed species; a description of animals likely to be found, with comments on habitat issues such as the importance of hollow trees; specific advice in relation to the threatened striped legless lizard, which has been surveyed for in the area, with no individuals recorded; and a brief statement as to the likely impacts of the proposed development on the vegetation and animals of the area.
Wildlife Research and Monitoring did not play any advocacy role in preparing the preliminary assessment. Wildlife Research and Monitoring is the only organisation with specific information on the many sites proposed for developed. This is gathered as part