Page 3464 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 19 September 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
nearly two years ago now and has remained unused and empty in that time. The building has been so seriously vandalised that it is not possible to use it any longer as a functioning building. Really, the only course of action open, as I understand, is to demolish it.
Mr Speaker, the ministry does have in place a program of installing electronically monitored intruder alarm systems in school buildings. Generally, the selection of the areas of the school to be covered by the intruder alarm systems focuses on the areas that contain valuable equipment, such as computers and audio-visual aids. Administration blocks, canteens and major corridor junction points are also covered. Intruder alarms are monitored by a security firm which attends to all alarm situations. When necessary, the security firm also provides a general patrol service. All secondary schools and colleges, and approximately two-thirds of the ministry's primary school buildings have had alarm systems installed to date. The program is continuing within existing budget limitations.
ACT Public Works
MR CONNOLLY: My question is to the Minister for Urban Services, Mr Duby. I refer Mr Duby to his statement to the Assembly on 14 August that the letter tabled during the debate that day on R and G Shelley was the standard arrangement entered into with all firms, and his answer yesterday to my question of 12 September in which he stated, "The letter that Mr Connolly referred to is one that was written to R and G Shelley Pty Limited as project managers and related to arrangements for their handling of progress payments to contractors engaged by them". I now ask the Minister: how many letters have in fact been sent to project managers requiring payment of moneys to subcontractors within seven days of receipt, and requiring audit of their accounts each month by the ACT Administration? Will Mr Duby table those letters requiring ACT Public Works audits of project managers?
MR DUBY: I thank Mr Connolly for the question. By his question Mr Connolly has again indicated that he fails to understand the basic difference between a project management group and a group that is contracting for work on a tender basis. Clearly, as I have indicated to you, the letter that you purported to produce from up your sleeve and show that it was somehow an indication that something was amiss was a project management letter issued to the Shelleys group which was also issued, and which is issued, to all other groups involved in project management work.
I am not, off the top of my head, able to advise how many firms are involved in project management work or over what period of time. I do not know. Clearly a certain percentage of work is done on a project management basis
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .