Defence: HMAS Brisbane

Mr Sciacca asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 11 March 2002:

1. How many tenders were received to scuttle the decommissioned HMAS Brisbane at the Sunshine Coast.
2. What was the decision making process for the tender and what criteria were applied to select the successful tender.
3. Was a full and independent study done of the environmental and economic impact of each tender.
4. Were the safety implications of each tender considered.
5. Did the decision making process involve a survey of the effect of each tender on Queensland tourism.

Mrs Vale - The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:

1. No tenders were received. Following representation from the Queensland State Government, the Government agreed that the ex HMAS Brisbane be gifted to the people of Queensland as a dive site off Point Cartwright on the Sunshine Coast.
2. The Minister for Defence is responsible for approving disposal decisions for major equipment such as the ex HMAS Brisbane. Selection of a suitable bid is based on cultural factors, such as historical or heritage links, and the ability of the bidder to successfully meet the financial and management outcomes of the bid. In this instance, the ex HMAS Brisbane has heritage links with the State of Queensland. Also, the Queensland State Government has advised their intention to develop a business plan and to manage implementation of their proposal for the ex HMAS Brisbane to be sunk as a dive site off the Sunshine Coast.
3. No. The decision making process did not consider environmental and economic impacts. In this case, the environmental and economic impact of the project is the responsibility of the Queensland State Government. The Premier of Queensland, the Hon Peter Beattie, has advised that a detailed business plan will be developed to support the implementation of the proposal. The Queensland State Government commissioned Sinclair Knight Mertz to conduct preliminary site investigations that included environmental assessment of potential sites. The National Centre for Tourism was engaged to examine potential economic benefits of the project.
4. No. The decision making process did not consider safety implications. These considerations are the responsibility of the Queensland State Government.
5. No. The decision making process did not consider the effects on Queensland tourism. However, the Queensland State Government commissioned the National Centre for Tourism to examine the potential economic benefits of the project.

close