Mr. Lar Bradshaw:

Correct. Now here is an interesting question as we proceed with that. The report states that there was no documentation on audit to suggest that the authority formally notified the Department of its intention to bid a number that was twice that. That is a true statement. However, here is another true statement - the No. 2 in the Department was fully aware from 3 October of exactly what the intentions of the authority were. With the greatest respect, I think it is reasonable of a board to assume that the Department knows when the representative from the Department - the No. 2 in the Department - is fully aware of everything it intends to do.

To put it another way, a week later when everybody knew exactly what it was that we bid and what percentage we got, I do not think there is any formal evidence that the Minister for the Environment or the Minister for Finance, or the Department of the Environment or the Department of Finance - there is no documentation - that they formally or informally came back to the authority to say it had misled them because a week later, that information would have been available.

With the greatest respect - the Comptroller and Auditor General's report which I think is a very fair one and that all of these are concerns which absolutely need to be discussed - I have to say that I think as a summary of this discussion a sentence which says, "There is no documentary evidence that the authority formally notified the Department", is a true statement, but it is an incomplete statement of the full events. I think there should have been two other statements in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report. The second one should have been, "There is a tonne of documentary evidence that the No. 2 in the Department was fully aware from the beginning of absolutely all our intentions." There should also be a statement that, "A week later when everybody knew what we had bid, there is no evidence that anybody had any issue."