Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2018 Week 11 Hansard (25 October) . . Page.. 4392 ..
During the development of the project early and consistent engagement was sought from the ACT Heritage Council, National Trust and Australian Institute of Architects (the Institute) to ensure that the project would be supported through the National Capital Authority (NCA) Works Approval process.
Both the National Trust and the Institute provided submissions to the NCA, thanking the project team for considering the heritage aspects of the building and for the sympathetic approach to the re-use of the building.
The Project Team have consulted with the profession (through either the Law Society or the Bar Association) on over a dozen occasions through the inception, design and construction phases of the project.
(2) The project was tendered as a Public Private Partnership (PPP), with two consortia being shortlisted for consideration. The treatment of heritage in the designs was an assessable criteria. The winning proposal included a design that refurbished existing courtrooms one and two while making meaningful use of the timber panelling and plaques in other areas of the facility. It was a requirement of the tender process that proposals met or exceeded the recommendation of the CMP, which the winning proposal did.
The drivers around replacing and upgrading individual courtrooms are the same as the needs which led to the entire courts facility project being initiated; the need to improve security, lack of secure custodial access to courtrooms, aging infrastructure and piecemeal development of audio visual equipment.
Animals—dog attack (Question No 1741)
Ms Lawder asked the Minister for City Services, upon notice, on 21 September 2018:
(1) How many dogs were on the premises at the time of the attack on Mr Daniel Meyers in Belconnen on 15 March 2016.
(2) Was the owner of the attacking dog/s identified.
(3) Was the attacking dog/s seized or held by Domestic Animal Services (DAS).
(4) Had the attacking dog/s come to the attention of DAS previously; if so, (a) was the dog/s registered, (b) was the dog/s microchipped, (c) what action had previously been taken by DAS against the owners and (d) what action had previously been taken by DAS against the dog/s.
(5) What happened to the attacking dog/s after the attack.
(6) If a dog/s was (a) euthanised, when did that happen, (b) not euthanised, what happened to the dog/s, (c) not euthanised, how long was it held by DAS.