Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 4 Hansard (27 March) . . Page.. 924..
Integrated document management system
MR QUINLAN: My question is to the Minister for Urban Services, I think. Can the minister confirm that tenders were invited late last year for the provision of an integrated document management system? Can he say how many responses were received and what is the status of the tender process? Is it a fact that the tender is to be reissued because the original documentation contained no objective measurements against which the competing bids could be reliably assessed?
MR SMYTH: Mr Speaker, we have an integrated document management services tender out. I would have to find out for the member the answers to the rest of his questions.
MR SPEAKER: Do you have a supplementary question, Mr Quinlan?
MR QUINLAN: To add to the ones on notice, can the minister advise this place how much money the department has wasted on the original flawed tender process?
MR SMYTH: I will add that to the list of questions I ask, Mr Speaker.
Standing Committee on Planning and Urban Services-report on Gungahlin Drive extension
MR KAINE: My question, through you, Mr Speaker, is to Mr Harold Hird as chair of the Standing Committee on Planning and Urban Services. I ask the question under the provisions of standing order 116. Mr Hird, I have received a copy of a letter which was addressed to you and which was sent, I am sure, to all members of the Assembly in connection with your report No 67. That letter makes a series of what I consider to be most serious and, if they are correct, most serious allegations about the conduct of your committee and the manner in which certain evidence to the committee was reflected in the final report signed by you and tabled in this Assembly. The allegations boil down to three basic charges: that their views were misrepresented in the committee's report; that new evidence given to the committee was ignored in the report; and that the number of persons for and against various options for the Gungahlin Drive extension were incorrectly tallied in your report.
I ask Mr Hird as chairman of the committee: why did your committee's final report on the proposed Gungahlin Drive extension misrepresent the views of the Save the Ridge community group? Why did the report fail to take account of new evidence presented to your committee? Why did the report contain incorrect tallies of the professed support for the various options, in particular the so-called eastern and western routes?
MR HIRD: Like Mr Kaine, I received correspondence from Save the Ridge convener, Mr Tanner, today and I instructed my secretary to place it on notice for the next deliberative meeting of my committee. However, the accusations made by the writer of that letter I refute. I believe they are one assessment by an individual of a very fine report that goes into detail.