Stirling Hinchliffe, Labor Member for Stafford, is the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning. His department, the Department of Infrastructure and Planning (DIP), is headed up by Colin Jensen the Director General. Colin Jensen is also the Coordinator General who will be making the ruling on the proposed Wooloowin Worksite.

The KWRA is awaiting reply to the following 12 questions posed to the Minister, Stirling Hinchliffe on August 27, 2009 at 3:28 PM:

-- START 12 QUESTIONS
1.  How long has the Minister known about the debacle of the
    need to sink a shaft on the propsed Wooloowin Worksite as
    a result of the lack of soil testing to support the winning
    tender by BrisConnections?

2.  Would the Minister please explain why his department has
    admitted to the residents of Wooloowin that the Proposed
    Worksite is the wrong type of project for this area, yet
    they will not remove doubt from the community by simply
    issuing a refusal to permit the changes?

3.  The reason for the proposed change as described in section
    3 of the Request for Change document created by CNI, states
    geotechnical difficulties.  BrisConnections knew, or ought
    have known, of these geotechnical conditions.  As a
    corollary, BrisConnections lied or were incompetent.  Can
    the Minister confirm which of these is this case?  CNI,
    City North Infrastructure, is the PRIVATE PARTY in a public
    private partnership which was formed by, and works,
    directly with the Minister's Department on this
    infrastructure project. CNI allocated the successful tender
    to BrisConnections in May 2008.

4.  Colin Jensen is the Coordinator General whilst at the same
    time he is the Director General of the Department of
    Infrastructure and Planning.  Can the Minister explain what
    process Colin Jensen is expected to follow on any issue
    where the view of the Director General, and any direction
    he may receive from the Minister, opposes the view of the
    Coordinator General?

5.  Has the Minister given any direction to Colin Jensen as to
    what the ruling on the proposed Wooloowin Worksite should
    be - either directly or indirectly?

6.  BrisConnections have repeatedly made public statements
    since the announcement of the Request for Change indicating
    the project is on track and on budget.  If this is the
    case, why then is the proposed Wooloowin Worksite under
    consideration by the Coordinator General?

7.  BrisConnections have repeatedly made public statements
    since the announcement of the Request for Change
    indicating the project is on track and on budget. There
    are only three possible explanations for this:
     a) BrisConnections are lying to shareholders and the
        public - the project is not on time or on budget.
     b) Brisconnections have been informed in advance that
        they will be given the approval for the proposed
        Wooloowin Worksite to enable them to be on time and
        on budget.
     c) They are correct, the project is on time and on budget,
        in which case they do not require the proposed
        Wooloowin Worksite to complete on time and on budget.
    To the best of the Minister's knowledge, which explanation
    is correct?

8.  Does the Minister deem it acceptable that the OPERATOR,
    BrisConnections, in a $4 billion Department of
    Infrastructure and Planning public private partnership is
    misleading the public with statements to the effect of "The
    project is on time and on budget" when it is clear that "on
    time" is crucially dependent upon a ruling in favour of the
    proposed Wooloowin Worksite?  A ruling which is yet to be
    made.  A proposed worksite which is not covered in the
    PROJECT AGREEMENT.  BrisConnections Public Statements
    issued on June 22 2009 and August 20 2009.

9.  The Reason For Proposed Change in section 3 of the Request
    for Change document states "These predicted delays would
    impact significantly on the delivery program, and would
    adversely affect the completion of Project works".  In a
    meeting with TJH, BrisConnections, CNI and community
    members on 19 August 2009, it was clarified by engineers
    that the proposed Wooloowin Worksite is purely to enable
    delivery of the project by June 2012.  In other words, the
    proposed Wooloowin Worksite is not required for successful
    project delivery.  Have CNI, BrisConnections or TJH
    received any directive or indication from the Minister, or
    his department, prior to the sending of this letter, as to
    whether the ruling by the Coordinator General will be in
    favour of the proposed Wooloowin Worksite?

10. Has the Minister received any direction from the Premier
    Anna Bligh, or her office, as to what the expected ruling
    on the proposed Wooloowin Worksite should be?  This
    includes outcome based directions, ie. "The project must
    be delivered on time by June 2012".

11. Given that the CEO of CNI, Mr David Lynch has declared that
    CNI is not subject to the Right To Information legislation,
    would the Minister please confirm that he is in full
    agreement with Mr Lynch and CNI does not need to be
    answerable to the public under the RTI legislation?

12. Would the Minister please confirm that the Request for
    Change covering the proposed Wooloowin Worksite being put
    forward by CNI, TJH and BrisConnections is indeed a bona
    fide project request and not simply a formality to provide
    yet another set of mates to receive a financial benefit
    from a Government decision, namely TJH to limit their
    liquidated damages and Mr Ray Wilson, CEO of
    BrisConnections to receive a $1Million bonus for
    completion on time as well as an array of undisclosed
    financial bonuses to senior employees of these companies?
-- END 12 QUESTIONS