Page 3953 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 5 December 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
been presented, one of which is the potential expenditure of $25 million and which actually suggests that the project may take between three and four years to complete. It is useful for the government, it is useful for the community, to know now the Liberal Party’s position is supportive; abandon a new bridge and proceed. (Time expired.)
Ainslie Village
DR FOSKEY: My question is to the Minister for Housing. In 1993 Labor’s Minister for Housing and Community Services approved and tabled in the Assembly the report and recommendations by Mr Justice Kelly based on a consultant’s summary of the needs of Ainslie Village residents. This addressed among other things whether Ainslie Village was providing an adequate level and type of support to existing and potential residents. Is the minister aware of this report and its recommendations?
MR HARGREAVES: I thank Dr Foskey for the question. I am aware of the report. However, things have moved on since then. We have had an enormous amount of change around Ainslie Village. We have had a change of provider. We have had a change in the nature of governance, the nature of residents’ involvement in the management of the village, and the situation that obtains in the village now is completely different from the situation that obtained at that particular time.
MR SPEAKER: A supplementary question, Dr Foskey?
DR FOSKEY: Yes, thank you, Mr Speaker. How did you know? Is the minister aware of the significant positive non-monetary contribution to the needs of Ainslie Village residents made by CWC Auto Services and its owner Nat McGahey for over 26 years?
MR HARGREAVES: I thank Dr Foskey for the trick question. It is a very good trick question. The real question, though, is: what are we doing to CWC in relation to their occupancy of a garage? Members might like to know that there has not been that much revenue flowing to the territory from the operations of that particular garage, but members might be particularly interested to know that the lessee has been involved in the village, and that has been recognised significantly by me and by the department. Indeed, the conversations we have been having with the operator-lessee of the garage continue, so they are not concluded, so I am not in a position to be able to inform the Assembly of the things going forward at this point.
Let me say this, though: we are concerned for the safety of those people that operate within that particular building. We are concerned that the structure of the roof is such that there is a potential danger. Under our obligations of occupational health and safety, and our moral obligation to make sure that people’s lives are looked after, we are concerned that that building may not be in a fit state to operate that particular business from. We have engaged some expert opinion to advise us on that, and the lessee there—I will not put the gentleman’s name on the record—has been in conversation with us. There was some delay recently because he took some well-earned leave and so we just held things in abeyance while he was away. He has had continual conversations with the department and indeed with my office directly. The last I heard—unless somebody can correct me—he was satisfied with the progress of where we were headed.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .