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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 12 Hansard (20 November) . . Page.. 4403 ..

MRS BURKE (continuing):

going to be refurbished? I am flagging that I would hate to see that happen for other complexes mentioned in this report, such as the Lyneham, Owen and De Burgh flats and Gowrie Court. It is a difficult and delicate matter to handle, Minister. That is why you are the minister. I think you will be able to learn from what happened at Currong and perhaps do things differently this time around. Hindsight is a great gift.

There are many points I could make, and I realise that time is upon me. On page 14 the report looks at condition assessment. I would like to know where that is up to, given that two years down the track we see, and I quote:

In addition, the total facility management contracts entered into in 2001 require a full condition assessment of all properties to be undertaken in the first three years ...

Is the minister able to give us a progress report on that? How are we doing with that? Some very important issues are obviously coming out of that.

I also wanted to look at the heritage issues. (Extension of time granted.) On page 15 of the report, we talk about heritage precincts in which the department owns a number of properties. There was some distress, Minister, and you probably got the flak as well when we got rid of some of the weatherboard homes in Kingston. I get quite disappointed about that. I realise that it is perhaps false economy to keep such properties, but I think we had better not get rid of all our history and that we have to keep some of our heritage. In that light, I would like to know which sites and properties are currently under consideration, if that is possible.

On page 16, under 'Response to the challenges', the first paragraph talks about an example of a total facility management concept. Mr Wood, you know as well as I do that we are experiencing many problems with this way of dealing with maintenance to our properties. Do we need to revisit that system? Maybe it is too far away from the government in this instance. Whilst it may not want to be the prime contractor, I just wonder if there is a better way of managing it. I would be really happy to talk to you about that as well. Has it improved the way we manage and do the turnover of maintenance requests, or is it giving the government and opposition of the day more unnecessary flak? That is something we can look at.

I am also concerned about some of the planning issues that will have an impact upon possible stock acquisition. Reading between the lines in talks with you, Minister, I know that you grapple with these on a daily basis. It is a matter of hard lobbying in the caucus to gain some ground. I would ask that you let the people know in a timely manner of the priority sites for assessment and of decisions regarding upgrading or replacement. It has been decided in the case of Currong but not in the cases of the Lyneham, Owen and De Burgh flats and Gowrie Court. We note here that DVP 200 provides existing use rights. I wonder if that is still working and if that is going to be the case.

I wanted to mention the one about the GST. On page 21 it says:

In addition, CSHA funding is reducing due to the efficiency dividend arrangements built into the formula and the withdrawal of funding previously provided for GST compensation - the GST cost increases, however, remain.

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