Officials raised concerns about viability, water use, animal welfare and giving land away free. Some concerns were addressed in the final deal, but not all.

Zoo owners Sridate, a company owned by Richard and Maureen Tindale, asked the government for a direct grant, at nil cost, of 56 hectares adjacent to the zoo. It also wanted help with soil regeneration, fencing, plants, help with building paths, toilets, shelters and IT equipment, help with connecting water, sewerage and electricity, landscaping, a waiver of rates and betterment tax, a payroll tax exemption for 10 years, and on-site teachers.

It planned a "large African savannah", plus 20 large African-style huts for up to 140 people and conference facilities.

Cabinet first considered the request in April 2003, when it agreed to continue negotiations but by the time the bid came back to Cabinet in July 2004, officials had a suite of worries.

The chief minister's department's policy group said the financial model needed more explanation.

"While animal welfare is the near exclusive consideration in the development of a successful modern zoo, the Sridate proposal appears to make animal welfare contingent on the financial success of the accommodation and convention facilities," senior director Andrew Rice wrote on July 7, 2004.

"Quite apart from the economic consequences for the territory if an expanded zoo proved to be non-viable (would the territory itself be faced with itself running a largish zoo?), the possibility that the zoo's animals would suffer is of concern. Cabinet needs greater assurance than is provided in the draft submission that the zoo's animals would not suffer in the event that anticipated revenues were not realised."

The chief minister's cabinet brief for a meeting on July 26, 2004, noted "major unresolved issues" remained in the Cabinet submission and said the decision should be deferred. The key issue was the "substantial disagreement by several agencies".

The brief, signed by Lincoln Hawkins, says, "The government veterinarian's words have been altered without his permission (instead of saying that certain types of animals be "preferred" for purchase in the zoo, he actually stated that onlycertain animals be purchased)."

The treatment of water in the submission was "seriously inadequate".

Planning officials didn't want a decision made ahead of decisions on using the land for roads into new suburbs in the Molonglo Valley.

The Land Development Agency wanted the land sold at market value and had pointed out that there was no mechanism to grant land at nil cost, an opinion backed by Justice.

The recommendation for a direct grant at nil cost also "appears inconsistent with the government's indication that it might seek to discontinue business concessional leases of this type", Mr Hawkins' brief says.

Urban Services had suggested Cabinet consider a "more transparent arrangement" in which the government would give the zoo a cash grant "on rigorous analysis" and the zoo would pay market rates for the land. This idea was scotched in other advice which pointed out that the government's economic white paper rejected cash grants to businesses.

Mr Hawkins's brief also points to concerns about viability, water and whether the savannah proposal was right for Canberra.

He was reflecting Mr Rice's minute of July 7, when Mr Rice questioned whether "African savannah" was in line with the ACT's bush capital marketing approach.

Mr Rice said Cabinet needed more information about planned water use, given the zoo already exceeded its water quota by "a very great amount". It had a licences for 3 megalitres a year, but used 90 megalitres of groundwater a year and wanted up to 119 megalitres.

When it made its final decision on August 2, 2004, the Cabinet submission said factors in favour of a direct grant included tourism and the lack of road access to allow other uses of the land.

"Treasury and other agencies questioned the viability of the zoo as a business", but "the evidence is that the zoo is viable", Cabinet was told.

Even then, while senior Chief Minister's department official Rod Power noted that each of the 10 issues of concern to Cabinet had now been addressed by Business ACT, "Of course, this does not mean that some agencies (or even policy group) are fully in accord with the submission's recommendations," he said. "Eg, Treasury remains concerned about the project's financial viability and its economic benefit to the ACT."

The Land Development Agency still wanted the land sold at full market value.

Cabinet agreed to grant the land, with the final lease dependent on a masterplan and assessment being done and other conditions, including decisions about water. In December 2006 Simon Corbell and Jon Stanhope signed over 20 hectares to the zoo, with the rest to be given "on or before September 2016" and only after at least 70 per cent of the first grant had been developed.

A spokesman for Chief Minister Andrew Barr said if the zoo still wanted the land it would be made available.