Page 4391 - Week 11 - Thursday, 25 October 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
(1) Are assessments done of all ACT schools to ensure the ACT Physical Education and Sport Policy is being delivered; if so, who does the assessment and how often; if not, why not.
(2) Are recess periods considered moderate to vigorous physical activity.
(3) Are recess periods included in the 25 minutes per day/150 minutes per week as outlined in the policy.
Ms Berry: The answer to the member’s question is as follows:
(1) The Canberra Public Schools Compliance Checklist is used by school principals to check that all legislative and policy requirements relevant to running schools have been met. The checklist is completed each semester and results, including partial compliance, are reported to the school board. The checklist covers the requirements specified in the Physical Education and Sport Policy, including the requirements regarding time spent performing moderate to vigorous physical activity.
(2) Students undertake a variety of activities at recess, some of which could be considered moderate to vigorous physical activity.
(3) Recess periods are not included in the planned physical education and sport programs as outlined in the Physical Education and Sport Policy.
Courts—heritage value
(Question No 1740)
Ms Lee asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 21 September 2018:
(1) What steps have been taken to preserve the heritage values of court rooms in the process of the Supreme Court renovations and (a) what were the costs associated with these steps, (b) when did these steps occur and (c) did the Minister consult any stakeholders during this process; if so, who and what feedback was received; if not, why not.
(2) Can the Minister list the factors and/or considerations which led to the decision that Court Room One should be stripped and the panelling and plaques removed.
(3) Was the decision to renovate Court Room One in line with the heritage assessment of the site made prior to the renovation; if not, why not.
Mr Ramsay: The answer to the member’s question is as follows:
(1) Heritage impacts on the existing building were a major consideration during the development of this project. A Conservation Management Plan (CMP) for the building was drafted by a specialist in the field and endorsed by the Heritage Council in January 2013. The cost for the development of the CMP was $27,500.
In summary those recommendations were that some significant fabric of the building (the marble façade, raised podium, window and door openings and overall building form) needed to be conserved. Interior elements (the timber panelling and explanatory plaques) could be relocated and interpreted.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video