Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 12 Hansard (7 December) . . Page.. 3837 ..

MR HARGREAVES (continuing):

Also, when does he envisage that the work on the new remand centre will commence and be completed?

MR HUMPHRIES: I thank Mr Hargreaves for the question. I have indicated already in answer to a question from Mr Stanhope that I think it will compromise the design process to some degree because once you have the remand centre at least partly built in the middle of the facility which is going to be your prison, there have to be some design compromises made. The point is that the remand centre will be built with an eye to the fact that we will have to adapt the prison to it and it to the prison to some degree.

I would expect, for example, that we would not build kitchens or extensive recreational facilities and possibly other facilities that would be shared between the remand centre part of the facility and the prison part of the facility because that would compromise too extensively what the prison itself will require. I would expect, for example, that we would continue to have, as I understand we now have, meals provided on a cook/chill basis into the remand centre from somewhere else, at least for the foreseeable future. A full - scale prison might well be different to that. It might well require its own cooking facilities.

I can only say to the Assembly and to Mr Hargreaves that we will attempt to make the two processes jell. I would hope we would have agreement in this place that it is important that we get a new remand centre quickly.

I am as concerned as anybody else about the escapes from the facility. We all know that the remand centre at Belconnen is way past its use - by date, that it is a mirror image of the old Katingal wing of Long Bay jail in Sydney which was long ago closed down. We need the new facility and I think this is the way to get it in appropriate circumstances. The additional cost is quite manageable, particularly given that it would be much less than the cost of refurbishing an existing facility such as the PDC at Symonston.

MR HARGREAVES: I thank the Chief Minister for that response. My supplementary question also relates to the announcement about the new remand centre. Chief Minister, since your most recent announcement about the final site of the prison has been that Symonston is your preferred site, you have constantly avoided saying that Symonston is the final government choice. Why have you not announced the fact that it is the preferred site but merely allowed it to leak out in the bottom of your press release? Have you advised the lessees of Symonston that you are about to commence building there?

MR HUMPHRIES: The lessees of Symonston are well aware of the proposal. I have met with them on a couple of occasions to talk about the issues and as far as I am aware they will be fully informed about this process. There is a very simple reason why we have not announced that it is the final version of the site. There is a matter that Mr Corbell could tell you about called a preliminary assessment under the land act which we had to conduct. If the preliminary assessment under the land act says that the site is unsuitable we would have to find somewhere else. That is why it is not the final site.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .