Courts Precinct

Mr TARZIA (Hartley) (15:11): My question is again to the Attorney-General. Has the government agreed to pay compensation to those parties who had registered an expression of interest to develop the courts precinct?

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform) (15:11): I can say this: the contractual arrangements between the government and the parties were based initially on a process called request for proposal, which is known as RFP by those people who know about these things. I heard this RFP for a while and I eventually worked out what it meant. Anyway, there started off this RFP thing and that involved a document, which was a very open-ended document. Essentially, the document says this—

Mr Marshall: You wrote it.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I did not personally write it. There is a very clever person in the Crown who I think did it. The document basically says this: 'If you want to engage in this process with us, you do so essentially at your own risk. You are able to proceed with this project. You can withdraw if you wish. We will start off with an initial number.' I cannot remember whether there were five or half a dozen people who initially flagged some interest, but then that eventually was narrowed down to three consortia. I think that is correct, isn't it? That is plural, consortia?

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Consortia.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Consortia.

The SPEAKER: I wouldn't rely on the Treasurer for pronunciation.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will stick with consortia. Then eventually, of those three, what happened was there was an analysis and appraisal of their offering—in other words, the physical proposition they were putting up, the building and the facilities—as against the design specifications that had been prepared. One of those three was found to be much better at delivering on the physical requirement. That left the other two to leave the competition, so to speak. Then the balance of the conversation with the last one was about the value for money proposition.

Mr Marshall: You didn't think to discuss that beforehand, before you got rid of all of the other people? Goodness gracious. What a mess!

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The Leader of the Opposition titters so, but the answer is this: the people—

The Hon. J.J. Snelling: Why does he titter so?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Why does he? The reason is that you do not get down to a detailed conversation about how you are going to pay for something until you have worked out that it is something that you want.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The process eliminated people whose designs were not satisfactory. If the member for Hartley wanted to buy a Hummer, for example, why would he go out and ask people who were selling Toyota Corollas how much they were? I am trying to get that across.

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The leader interjected that the previous attorney would have had the Supreme Court built by now. In 2003 or 2004, the previous attorney offered the then chief justice a public-private partnership, state-of-the-art, new Supreme Court on the tram barn site. The chief justice came back some weeks later and said that his brother judges, led by shop steward Bleby, had decided not to accept the offer on two grounds: one was—

Mr Gardner: I hope there is a pause in our time.

The SPEAKER: —yes, pause the time, Rick—that the judges felt that they had a link to the south-western corner, rather than the south-eastern corner and, secondly, they did not wish to walk across Victoria Square from the south-eastern side to the Sir Samuel Way Building, as they would sometimes be required to do under my proposal. The then minister Conlon was desperate for a public-private partnership at that time. The new Supreme Court building could have been the first.

Ms CHAPMAN: Can I have a supplementary?

The SPEAKER: Yes. By the way, it's consortia or consortiums.