Page 648 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 20 May 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR WESTENDE: I have a supplementary question, Madam Speaker. I thank the Minister for his answer, but why has it taken my asking a question without notice to get an answer? The reason I ask is that Mr Michael Johnson of Kippax Fair wrote to you, Mr Minister, on 28 April and again on 15 May and has not to date received even an acknowledgment of this correspondence.
MR WOOD: I suspect that it may be that he has received an answer today, because yesterday I got in my in-tray the same letter as you have got; and my recollection is that the day before, or the day before that, I signed out a letter to Mr Johnson. That letter, dated 28 April, was signed out on about the 15th, 16th or 17th of this month. So, he has got his reply. I have also indicated, I think publicly, that this is the position of the Government. I have indicated to the Kippax traders whom he represents that those other areas of West Belconnen remain under active consideration.
South Building
MRS GRASSBY: Can the Minister for Urban Services indicate whether an architect has been contracted by the Government to investigate refurbishing possibilities for the South Building? If so, what will the cost to the Government be?
MR CONNOLLY: I thank Mrs Grassby for her question. I heard the former Chief Minister huffing and puffing on this on the radio while I was having my shower this morning, saying, "Shock, horror, outrage - what a terrible waste of public funds! The Government is spending money on an architect when a committee is examining the question". That tells us a lot about Liberal Party decision making processes. Obviously, knowing that a committee is looking at this issue and that it is to report in August, on the first sitting day of the budget sittings, their decision making process would be to go out and have a look at lots of buildings and come up with a decision as to the favoured location of the Assembly. Then the Government or the Assembly would scratch their heads and say, "Well, we think this is nice. Perhaps we had better ask an architect whether it is feasible". Of course, that would be a very foolish way of going about making a decision, because you would come to a conclusion that you favour a building, without knowing whether a building is technically able to be used for the purpose intended.
In order to aid the committee with its decision making process - not to pre-empt it, but to aid it - the Government, very sensibly, has spent a modest amount of money. We have authorised expenditure of up to $20,000 - I understand that the actual expenditure is running well under that - for an urban design consultant, Colin Stewart, to look at South Building so that, when the committee is making up its mind and deliberating on where the Assembly should sit, it has sound technical advice and can decide whether that is a feasible or desirable location for the Assembly.
How typical of the Liberal Party to quibble over this and how foolish it must make them look to ordinary citizens. As Mrs Grassby and I were discussing earlier, if you are going to buy a new house, before you make the decision to buy you engage a consultant to tell you whether it is structurally sound, to tell you whether the alterations that you want to make to it can be made.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .