Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2007 Week 9 Hansard (26 September) . . Page.. 2694..
MR STANHOPE: Well, the standard that might have been anticipated was a standard that allows the fabric, as it is, to simply be maintained. This is perhaps to enhance the plumbing, by way of example, or to ensure that the roof is sound or to deal with the painting et cetera. That, of course, would be an upgrade that would have a certain value—say, $2 million.
An acceptable standard in the context of further and other uses is a standard that requires potentially, say, the incorporation of a significant kitchen, a commercial kitchen that deals with a whole range of issues around that, issues around perhaps other aspects of the facility with a very significant other cost that no government would entertain until it had some view around the potential for further or other use of the Albert Hall and the basis on which it would be managed.
These are significant issues with significant consequences. The opposition says, "When are you going to bring the Albert Hall up to an acceptable standard and what processes do you have in place?"We have a process in place. It was an expression of interest tender that actually called for expressions of interest in its long-term management with provisos within the tender arrangement that would seek to impose on the manager or managing group a responsibility to upgrade it to an agreed standard.
Mr Mulcahy: It has not worked, has it?
MR STANHOPE: Well, I have just indicated two minutes ago that that process has not yet been brought to formal formality, and during that process there were significant changes, not the least of which being the dropping on the table of DA 53 and a range of other issues that actually burst forth as a result of that particular intervention by the NCA in relation to the precinct and other possible uses of the precinct which changed the entire landscape in relation to the future of the Albert Hall most significantly.
It has required, of course, an adjustment to our thinking in terms of how we might deal with the future of the Albert Hall. It is an issue that we are grappling with. It is receiving enormous attention across all government agencies, by the NCA, by the heritage council and through the Friends of the Albert Hall. It is an issue, of course, that we will bring to resolution.
MR SPEAKER: In relation to the provision of papers by ministers during question time, there is a long custom of not requiring ministers to hand over parts of question time briefs. Nevertheless, they would only be required to hand over documents they were referring to if a motion was passed in that regard.
MRS DUNNE: My question is to the Minister for the Territory and Municipal Services. Minister, over the last few months, the Cityscape depot in Turner has been adorned with a spectacular array of graffiti, evidence of which Mr Pratt tabled during the truncated budget debate last month. Minister, is it government policy to allow government owned buildings to be covered with graffiti? If not, why are you willing to tolerate it on these buildings for such a long period, as has been the case in Turner?