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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 6 Hansard (19 June) . . Page.. 1887 ..

4. I reject the suggestion that, because Maunsell Pty Ltd does other transport analyses and engineering work for the ACT Government, there is a conflict of interest from its role as the consultant undertaking the John Dedman Parkway corridor and environmental study.

Each of the consultant organisations invited to tender for this consultancy is involved, to a greater or lesser degree, in similar activities to those in which Maunsell Pty Ltd is engaged. It should be apparent that the road design, construction, transport planning and environmental assessment skills which each of the invited consultants possesses are all important to undertaking a study of the nature of the current John Dedman Parkway corridor and environmental study.

It is nonsense to suggest that involvement in the current John Dedman Parkway study confers any advantage on the consultant doing that work. The reports and documentation produced as part of the study will form inputs to any future construction activity, and these will be available to any organisation which might be selected to undertake construction work in the future. Any future work on a future road or other transport facility will be subject to the usual tendering processes followed by ACT Government agencies.

It is unlikely that a future John Dedman Parkway will be constructed in any configuration before the turn of the century, and, more likely than not, the timing would be well into the first decade of the 21st century. This assumes, of course, that a decision will be taken to proceed with the John Dedman Parkway, and it is an implicit requirement of the current study that alternatives be evaluated and the need for the parkway be fully justified.

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