Page 1667 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 1 April 2009

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

Supplementary answers to questions without notice

Hospitals—dischargeable patients

Alexander Maconochie Centre

MR HARGREAVES: Yesterday I received a question from Ms Bresnan on the review of disability services, and I can respond in this way. The review of the role of governments in the provision of disability services in the ACT produced a final document in the form of a think-tank report. This report is available on the Disability ACT website under the title “Final think tank report”. A document showing progress to date against the think-tank recommendations is now available on the Disability ACT website, and the new disability strategy will be released later this year. And—

MR SPEAKER: Yes, Mr Hargreaves.

MR HARGREAVES: Mr Speaker, I wish to make two clarifications regarding comments I made during question time yesterday. I indicated in answer to Mr Hanson that the current funding for the chapel of the AMC could be part of the current contract to construct the AMC. This inference is not correct. The $513,000 allocated by this government over financial years 2008-09 and 2009-10 for the construction of a chapel or a quiet place will be subject to a separate procurement process. And, as I indicated yesterday, Mr Speaker, it will be delayed somewhat so that we can conduct consultation with those people who are residents of the AMC, because, after all, they are the people who receive the benefit from that. I also want to have conversations with the chaplains, who will also operate from that facility.

Secondly, Mr Speaker, in the same answer it could be interpreted that, when referring to the issue of item 2.6, I may have given the impression that the matter was fully addressed and that the contract had been completed. Work under the contract has been completed and, as is normal in construction matters, a 12-month defects liability and maintenance period is now in place. The matter of item 2.6 has been put aside for resolution within that period. At issue is the resolution of a particular descriptor within a relevant clause of the contract that relates to the specifications of the hierarchical security system.

The issue of the specific hierarchy within the security system reflects the yet unresolved difference in interpretation of the system specifications. It is the government’s view that this specification has yet to be met. This difference in this yet to be resolved interpretation has no impact whatsoever on the efficiency and effectiveness of the security systems in place; nor does it impact on the safe operation of the facility. There is certainly no downgrading, as claimed by Mr Hanson. Clearly, Mr Hanson does not understand the intricacies of state-of-the-art security systems or matters which refer to the relationships and interconnectivity of the systems modules.

Mr Speaker, I am satisfied, based on the project team’s advice and the independent certification provided by the Webb Australia Group, that the AMC’s security system is suitable for its intended purpose and that it will meet the security and operational needs of the centre, including staff, prisoners and visitors. The technical details of the

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .