Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . Search

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2006 Week 4 Hansard (4 May) . . Page.. 1312..


Disabled persons—housing

(Question No 1015)

Mrs Burke asked the Minister for Disability, Housing and Community Services, upon notice, on 28 March 2006:

In relation to the report entitled Raising Our Voice, has Housing ACT taken any steps to implement Estate Agreements between the Department and any of the multi-unit complexes in the ACT; if so, (a) at which complexes has this occurred and (b) what success has Housing ACT had with the implementation of improved standards of service to these multi-unit complexes and enforcing the obligations of tenants to abide by their tenancy agreements with the Department.

Mr Hargreaves

: The answer to the member's question is as follows:

Recommendation 2.2 of "Raising our Voice"was to establish multi-unit site agreements. This issue has been referred to the Joint Champions Group for advice, in line with the department's response to the Raising Our Voice recommendations. To date the Joint Champions Group has not identified this recommendation as a short-term priority.

Firelink contract—tenders

(Question No 1016)

Mr Pratt asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 28 March 2006:

(1) What role did the Government Procurement Board (GPB) play in the awarding of the contract, reference number 04/5654, for Provision of Firelink and Mac2 technology to Australian Technology Information Pty Ltd, the Firelink contract, GPB reference number 252/05;

(2) What was the GPB's reasoning for endorsing a single select tender process for this contract;

(3) Who were the members of the GPB at the time this tender was approved;

(4) Was the GPB's decision to endorse a single select tender process a unanimous decision; if not, who dissented and what were their reasons;

(5) Was the GPB aware that the original contract price of $3.2million had the potential to grow to $4.3million and what were the reasons provided to the GPB for this potential growth;

(6) What major risks did the GPB consider to be associated with the procurement;

(7) Was the GPB satisfied that there were adequate performance measures, such as timelines, benchmarks, milestones and the like, contained in the contract;

(8) Was the GPB made aware of any other potential Australian providers of Firelink and Mac2 equivalents; if not, why not; if so, why did they endorse the single select process;

(9) Does the GPB have any further role in the management of the Firelink contract.


Next page . . . . Previous page. . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . Search