❓ A member of parliament questions the Minister for Arts regarding the closure of the Francis Street Museum site, seeking the release of specific advice and evaluations related to the decision-making process, particularly concerning asbestos risks and alternative site considerations. The Minister provides some documents and explanations.
AnsweredQoN 1055Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer the minister to her answer to question on notice 2373 in the Legislative Council. (1) Why did the minister fail to table advice from Dr Gary Morgan concerning the Francis Street Museum site closure? (2) Will the minister table that advice now; and, if not, why not? (3) Why did the minister refuse to table the full evaluation of the Welshpool site undertaken by the Valuer General’s office? (4) Will the minister table the full evaluation; and, if not, why not? (5) Will the minister table any advice given to her concerning the February incident at the Francis Street site that led to the closure decision; and, if not, why not? (6) Will the minister table documents showing evaluations made of the other buildings under consideration as listed in her answer; and, if not, why not? (7) Who was the officer who spotted the Welshpool building sale advertisement? Hon KEN TRAVERS
AnswerView source ↗
On behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Culture and the Arts, I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) In the minister’s response to question on notice 2373, she indicated that Dr Morgan had provided a wide range of advice over a period of years relating to the asbestos risk in the Francis Street building, first identified more than 10 years ago and the subject of 16 reports and studies, as per the list supplied with parliamentary question on notice 2373. If the member can indicate to the minister which particular advice he is referring to, the minister will table it. (3) Part (11) of the response to question on notice 2373 provided the evaluation by the Valuer General’s office. A full copy of the report is attached. I seek leave to table that. (4) Not applicable. See response to question (3). (5) Attached is a briefing on the asbestos incident of Monday, 10 February 2003. I seek leave to table that. (6) Potential sites were considered by officers of the Department of Housing and Works and Museum staff. The summary of these considerations was provided to the ministerial steering committee on museum development. The decision by the ministerial steering committee was that the Kew Street site was the most favourable. A copy of the summary document is attached. I seek leave to table that. (7) Officers in the acquisitions section of the Department of Housing and Works routinely inspect the commercial property market as part of their usual duties, and it is through this process that the Kew Street property came to the Government’s attention. [See paper No 2963.]
(1) Why did the minister fail to table advice from Dr Gary Morgan concerning the Francis Street Museum site closure? (2) Will the minister table that advice now; and, if not, why not? (3) Why did the minister refuse to table the full evaluation of the Welshpool site undertaken by the Valuer General’s office? (4) Will the minister table the full evaluation; and, if not, why not? (5) Will the minister table any advice given to her concerning the February incident at the Francis Street site that led to the closure decision; and, if not, why not? (6) Will the minister table documents showing evaluations made of the other buildings under consideration as listed in her answer; and, if not, why not? (7) Who was the officer who spotted the Welshpool building sale advertisement? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: On behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Culture and the Arts, I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) In the minister’s response to question on notice 2373, she indicated that Dr Morgan had provided a wide range of advice over a period of years relating to the asbestos risk in the Francis Street building, first identified more than 10 years ago and the subject of 16 reports and studies, as per the list supplied with parliamentary question on notice 2373. If the member can indicate to the minister which particular advice he is referring to, the minister will table it. (3) Part (11) of the response to question on notice 2373 provided the evaluation by the Valuer General’s office. A full copy of the report is attached. I seek leave to table that. (4) Not applicable. See response to question (3). (5) Attached is a briefing on the asbestos incident of Monday, 10 February 2003. I seek leave to table that. (6) Potential sites were considered by officers of the Department of Housing and Works and Museum staff. The summary of these considerations was provided to the ministerial steering committee on museum development. The decision by the ministerial steering committee was that the Kew Street site was the most favourable. A copy of the summary document is attached. I seek leave to table that. (7) Officers in the acquisitions section of the Department of Housing and Works routinely inspect the commercial property market as part of their usual duties, and it is through this process that the Kew Street property came to the Government’s attention. [See paper No 2963.]
(2) Will the minister table that advice now; and, if not, why not? (3) Why did the minister refuse to table the full evaluation of the Welshpool site undertaken by the Valuer General’s office? (4) Will the minister table the full evaluation; and, if not, why not? (5) Will the minister table any advice given to her concerning the February incident at the Francis Street site that led to the closure decision; and, if not, why not? (6) Will the minister table documents showing evaluations made of the other buildings under consideration as listed in her answer; and, if not, why not? (7) Who was the officer who spotted the Welshpool building sale advertisement? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: On behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Culture and the Arts, I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) In the minister’s response to question on notice 2373, she indicated that Dr Morgan had provided a wide range of advice over a period of years relating to the asbestos risk in the Francis Street building, first identified more than 10 years ago and the subject of 16 reports and studies, as per the list supplied with parliamentary question on notice 2373. If the member can indicate to the minister which particular advice he is referring to, the minister will table it. (3) Part (11) of the response to question on notice 2373 provided the evaluation by the Valuer General’s office. A full copy of the report is attached. I seek leave to table that. (4) Not applicable. See response to question (3). (5) Attached is a briefing on the asbestos incident of Monday, 10 February 2003. I seek leave to table that. (6) Potential sites were considered by officers of the Department of Housing and Works and Museum staff. The summary of these considerations was provided to the ministerial steering committee on museum development. The decision by the ministerial steering committee was that the Kew Street site was the most favourable. A copy of the summary document is attached. I seek leave to table that. (7) Officers in the acquisitions section of the Department of Housing and Works routinely inspect the commercial property market as part of their usual duties, and it is through this process that the Kew Street property came to the Government’s attention. [See paper No 2963.]
(3) Why did the minister refuse to table the full evaluation of the Welshpool site undertaken by the Valuer General’s office? (4) Will the minister table the full evaluation; and, if not, why not? (5) Will the minister table any advice given to her concerning the February incident at the Francis Street site that led to the closure decision; and, if not, why not? (6) Will the minister table documents showing evaluations made of the other buildings under consideration as listed in her answer; and, if not, why not? (7) Who was the officer who spotted the Welshpool building sale advertisement? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: On behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Culture and the Arts, I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) In the minister’s response to question on notice 2373, she indicated that Dr Morgan had provided a wide range of advice over a period of years relating to the asbestos risk in the Francis Street building, first identified more than 10 years ago and the subject of 16 reports and studies, as per the list supplied with parliamentary question on notice 2373. If the member can indicate to the minister which particular advice he is referring to, the minister will table it. (3) Part (11) of the response to question on notice 2373 provided the evaluation by the Valuer General’s office. A full copy of the report is attached. I seek leave to table that. (4) Not applicable. See response to question (3). (5) Attached is a briefing on the asbestos incident of Monday, 10 February 2003. I seek leave to table that. (6) Potential sites were considered by officers of the Department of Housing and Works and Museum staff. The summary of these considerations was provided to the ministerial steering committee on museum development. The decision by the ministerial steering committee was that the Kew Street site was the most favourable. A copy of the summary document is attached. I seek leave to table that. (7) Officers in the acquisitions section of the Department of Housing and Works routinely inspect the commercial property market as part of their usual duties, and it is through this process that the Kew Street property came to the Government’s attention. [See paper No 2963.]
(4) Will the minister table the full evaluation; and, if not, why not? (5) Will the minister table any advice given to her concerning the February incident at the Francis Street site that led to the closure decision; and, if not, why not? (6) Will the minister table documents showing evaluations made of the other buildings under consideration as listed in her answer; and, if not, why not? (7) Who was the officer who spotted the Welshpool building sale advertisement? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: On behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Culture and the Arts, I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) In the minister’s response to question on notice 2373, she indicated that Dr Morgan had provided a wide range of advice over a period of years relating to the asbestos risk in the Francis Street building, first identified more than 10 years ago and the subject of 16 reports and studies, as per the list supplied with parliamentary question on notice 2373. If the member can indicate to the minister which particular advice he is referring to, the minister will table it. (3) Part (11) of the response to question on notice 2373 provided the evaluation by the Valuer General’s office. A full copy of the report is attached. I seek leave to table that. (4) Not applicable. See response to question (3). (5) Attached is a briefing on the asbestos incident of Monday, 10 February 2003. I seek leave to table that. (6) Potential sites were considered by officers of the Department of Housing and Works and Museum staff. The summary of these considerations was provided to the ministerial steering committee on museum development. The decision by the ministerial steering committee was that the Kew Street site was the most favourable. A copy of the summary document is attached. I seek leave to table that. (7) Officers in the acquisitions section of the Department of Housing and Works routinely inspect the commercial property market as part of their usual duties, and it is through this process that the Kew Street property came to the Government’s attention. [See paper No 2963.]
(5) Will the minister table any advice given to her concerning the February incident at the Francis Street site that led to the closure decision; and, if not, why not? (6) Will the minister table documents showing evaluations made of the other buildings under consideration as listed in her answer; and, if not, why not? (7) Who was the officer who spotted the Welshpool building sale advertisement? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: On behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Culture and the Arts, I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) In the minister’s response to question on notice 2373, she indicated that Dr Morgan had provided a wide range of advice over a period of years relating to the asbestos risk in the Francis Street building, first identified more than 10 years ago and the subject of 16 reports and studies, as per the list supplied with parliamentary question on notice 2373. If the member can indicate to the minister which particular advice he is referring to, the minister will table it. (3) Part (11) of the response to question on notice 2373 provided the evaluation by the Valuer General’s office. A full copy of the report is attached. I seek leave to table that. (4) Not applicable. See response to question (3). (5) Attached is a briefing on the asbestos incident of Monday, 10 February 2003. I seek leave to table that. (6) Potential sites were considered by officers of the Department of Housing and Works and Museum staff. The summary of these considerations was provided to the ministerial steering committee on museum development. The decision by the ministerial steering committee was that the Kew Street site was the most favourable. A copy of the summary document is attached. I seek leave to table that. (7) Officers in the acquisitions section of the Department of Housing and Works routinely inspect the commercial property market as part of their usual duties, and it is through this process that the Kew Street property came to the Government’s attention. [See paper No 2963.]
(6) Will the minister table documents showing evaluations made of the other buildings under consideration as listed in her answer; and, if not, why not? (7) Who was the officer who spotted the Welshpool building sale advertisement? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: On behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Culture and the Arts, I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) In the minister’s response to question on notice 2373, she indicated that Dr Morgan had provided a wide range of advice over a period of years relating to the asbestos risk in the Francis Street building, first identified more than 10 years ago and the subject of 16 reports and studies, as per the list supplied with parliamentary question on notice 2373. If the member can indicate to the minister which particular advice he is referring to, the minister will table it. (3) Part (11) of the response to question on notice 2373 provided the evaluation by the Valuer General’s office. A full copy of the report is attached. I seek leave to table that. (4) Not applicable. See response to question (3). (5) Attached is a briefing on the asbestos incident of Monday, 10 February 2003. I seek leave to table that. (6) Potential sites were considered by officers of the Department of Housing and Works and Museum staff. The summary of these considerations was provided to the ministerial steering committee on museum development. The decision by the ministerial steering committee was that the Kew Street site was the most favourable. A copy of the summary document is attached. I seek leave to table that. (7) Officers in the acquisitions section of the Department of Housing and Works routinely inspect the commercial property market as part of their usual duties, and it is through this process that the Kew Street property came to the Government’s attention. [See paper No 2963.]
(7) Who was the officer who spotted the Welshpool building sale advertisement? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: On behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Culture and the Arts, I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) In the minister’s response to question on notice 2373, she indicated that Dr Morgan had provided a wide range of advice over a period of years relating to the asbestos risk in the Francis Street building, first identified more than 10 years ago and the subject of 16 reports and studies, as per the list supplied with parliamentary question on notice 2373. If the member can indicate to the minister which particular advice he is referring to, the minister will table it. (3) Part (11) of the response to question on notice 2373 provided the evaluation by the Valuer General’s office. A full copy of the report is attached. I seek leave to table that. (4) Not applicable. See response to question (3). (5) Attached is a briefing on the asbestos incident of Monday, 10 February 2003. I seek leave to table that. (6) Potential sites were considered by officers of the Department of Housing and Works and Museum staff. The summary of these considerations was provided to the ministerial steering committee on museum development. The decision by the ministerial steering committee was that the Kew Street site was the most favourable. A copy of the summary document is attached. I seek leave to table that. (7) Officers in the acquisitions section of the Department of Housing and Works routinely inspect the commercial property market as part of their usual duties, and it is through this process that the Kew Street property came to the Government’s attention. [See paper No 2963.]
Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: On behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Culture and the Arts, I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) In the minister’s response to question on notice 2373, she indicated that Dr Morgan had provided a wide range of advice over a period of years relating to the asbestos risk in the Francis Street building, first identified more than 10 years ago and the subject of 16 reports and studies, as per the list supplied with parliamentary question on notice 2373. If the member can indicate to the minister which particular advice he is referring to, the minister will table it. (3) Part (11) of the response to question on notice 2373 provided the evaluation by the Valuer General’s office. A full copy of the report is attached. I seek leave to table that. (4) Not applicable. See response to question (3). (5) Attached is a briefing on the asbestos incident of Monday, 10 February 2003. I seek leave to table that. (6) Potential sites were considered by officers of the Department of Housing and Works and Museum staff. The summary of these considerations was provided to the ministerial steering committee on museum development. The decision by the ministerial steering committee was that the Kew Street site was the most favourable. A copy of the summary document is attached. I seek leave to table that. (7) Officers in the acquisitions section of the Department of Housing and Works routinely inspect the commercial property market as part of their usual duties, and it is through this process that the Kew Street property came to the Government’s attention. [See paper No 2963.]
On behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Culture and the Arts, I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) In the minister’s response to question on notice 2373, she indicated that Dr Morgan had provided a wide range of advice over a period of years relating to the asbestos risk in the Francis Street building, first identified more than 10 years ago and the subject of 16 reports and studies, as per the list supplied with parliamentary question on notice 2373. If the member can indicate to the minister which particular advice he is referring to, the minister will table it. (3) Part (11) of the response to question on notice 2373 provided the evaluation by the Valuer General’s office. A full copy of the report is attached. I seek leave to table that. (4) Not applicable. See response to question (3). (5) Attached is a briefing on the asbestos incident of Monday, 10 February 2003. I seek leave to table that. (6) Potential sites were considered by officers of the Department of Housing and Works and Museum staff. The summary of these considerations was provided to the ministerial steering committee on museum development. The decision by the ministerial steering committee was that the Kew Street site was the most favourable. A copy of the summary document is attached. I seek leave to table that. (7) Officers in the acquisitions section of the Department of Housing and Works routinely inspect the commercial property market as part of their usual duties, and it is through this process that the Kew Street property came to the Government’s attention. [See paper No 2963.]
(1)-(2) In the minister’s response to question on notice 2373, she indicated that Dr Morgan had provided a wide range of advice over a period of years relating to the asbestos risk in the Francis Street building, first identified more than 10 years ago and the subject of 16 reports and studies, as per the list supplied with parliamentary question on notice 2373. If the member can indicate to the minister which particular advice he is referring to, the minister will table it. (3) Part (11) of the response to question on notice 2373 provided the evaluation by the Valuer General’s office. A full copy of the report is attached. I seek leave to table that. (4) Not applicable. See response to question (3). (5) Attached is a briefing on the asbestos incident of Monday, 10 February 2003. I seek leave to table that. (6) Potential sites were considered by officers of the Department of Housing and Works and Museum staff. The summary of these considerations was provided to the ministerial steering committee on museum development. The decision by the ministerial steering committee was that the Kew Street site was the most favourable. A copy of the summary document is attached. I seek leave to table that. (7) Officers in the acquisitions section of the Department of Housing and Works routinely inspect the commercial property market as part of their usual duties, and it is through this process that the Kew Street property came to the Government’s attention. [See paper No 2963.]
(3) Part (11) of the response to question on notice 2373 provided the evaluation by the Valuer General’s office. A full copy of the report is attached. I seek leave to table that. (4) Not applicable. See response to question (3). (5) Attached is a briefing on the asbestos incident of Monday, 10 February 2003. I seek leave to table that. (6) Potential sites were considered by officers of the Department of Housing and Works and Museum staff. The summary of these considerations was provided to the ministerial steering committee on museum development. The decision by the ministerial steering committee was that the Kew Street site was the most favourable. A copy of the summary document is attached. I seek leave to table that. (7) Officers in the acquisitions section of the Department of Housing and Works routinely inspect the commercial property market as part of their usual duties, and it is through this process that the Kew Street property came to the Government’s attention. [See paper No 2963.]
(4) Not applicable. See response to question (3). (5) Attached is a briefing on the asbestos incident of Monday, 10 February 2003. I seek leave to table that. (6) Potential sites were considered by officers of the Department of Housing and Works and Museum staff. The summary of these considerations was provided to the ministerial steering committee on museum development. The decision by the ministerial steering committee was that the Kew Street site was the most favourable. A copy of the summary document is attached. I seek leave to table that. (7) Officers in the acquisitions section of the Department of Housing and Works routinely inspect the commercial property market as part of their usual duties, and it is through this process that the Kew Street property came to the Government’s attention. [See paper No 2963.]
(5) Attached is a briefing on the asbestos incident of Monday, 10 February 2003. I seek leave to table that. (6) Potential sites were considered by officers of the Department of Housing and Works and Museum staff. The summary of these considerations was provided to the ministerial steering committee on museum development. The decision by the ministerial steering committee was that the Kew Street site was the most favourable. A copy of the summary document is attached. I seek leave to table that. (7) Officers in the acquisitions section of the Department of Housing and Works routinely inspect the commercial property market as part of their usual duties, and it is through this process that the Kew Street property came to the Government’s attention. [See paper No 2963.]
(6) Potential sites were considered by officers of the Department of Housing and Works and Museum staff. The summary of these considerations was provided to the ministerial steering committee on museum development. The decision by the ministerial steering committee was that the Kew Street site was the most favourable. A copy of the summary document is attached. I seek leave to table that. (7) Officers in the acquisitions section of the Department of Housing and Works routinely inspect the commercial property market as part of their usual duties, and it is through this process that the Kew Street property came to the Government’s attention. [See paper No 2963.]
(7) Officers in the acquisitions section of the Department of Housing and Works routinely inspect the commercial property market as part of their usual duties, and it is through this process that the Kew Street property came to the Government’s attention. [See paper No 2963.]
[See paper No 2963.]
(1) Why did the minister fail to table advice from Dr Gary Morgan concerning the Francis Street Museum site closure? (2) Will the minister table that advice now; and, if not, why not? (3) Why did the minister refuse to table the full evaluation of the Welshpool site undertaken by the Valuer General’s office? (4) Will the minister table the full evaluation; and, if not, why not? (5) Will the minister table any advice given to her concerning the February incident at the Francis Street site that led to the closure decision; and, if not, why not? (6) Will the minister table documents showing evaluations made of the other buildings under consideration as listed in her answer; and, if not, why not? (7) Who was the officer who spotted the Welshpool building sale advertisement? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: On behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Culture and the Arts, I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) In the minister’s response to question on notice 2373, she indicated that Dr Morgan had provided a wide range of advice over a period of years relating to the asbestos risk in the Francis Street building, first identified more than 10 years ago and the subject of 16 reports and studies, as per the list supplied with parliamentary question on notice 2373. If the member can indicate to the minister which particular advice he is referring to, the minister will table it. (3) Part (11) of the response to question on notice 2373 provided the evaluation by the Valuer General’s office. A full copy of the report is attached. I seek leave to table that. (4) Not applicable. See response to question (3). (5) Attached is a briefing on the asbestos incident of Monday, 10 February 2003. I seek leave to table that. (6) Potential sites were considered by officers of the Department of Housing and Works and Museum staff. The summary of these considerations was provided to the ministerial steering committee on museum development. The decision by the ministerial steering committee was that the Kew Street site was the most favourable. A copy of the summary document is attached. I seek leave to table that. (7) Officers in the acquisitions section of the Department of Housing and Works routinely inspect the commercial property market as part of their usual duties, and it is through this process that the Kew Street property came to the Government’s attention. [See paper No 2963.]
(2) Will the minister table that advice now; and, if not, why not? (3) Why did the minister refuse to table the full evaluation of the Welshpool site undertaken by the Valuer General’s office? (4) Will the minister table the full evaluation; and, if not, why not? (5) Will the minister table any advice given to her concerning the February incident at the Francis Street site that led to the closure decision; and, if not, why not? (6) Will the minister table documents showing evaluations made of the other buildings under consideration as listed in her answer; and, if not, why not? (7) Who was the officer who spotted the Welshpool building sale advertisement? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: On behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Culture and the Arts, I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) In the minister’s response to question on notice 2373, she indicated that Dr Morgan had provided a wide range of advice over a period of years relating to the asbestos risk in the Francis Street building, first identified more than 10 years ago and the subject of 16 reports and studies, as per the list supplied with parliamentary question on notice 2373. If the member can indicate to the minister which particular advice he is referring to, the minister will table it. (3) Part (11) of the response to question on notice 2373 provided the evaluation by the Valuer General’s office. A full copy of the report is attached. I seek leave to table that. (4) Not applicable. See response to question (3). (5) Attached is a briefing on the asbestos incident of Monday, 10 February 2003. I seek leave to table that. (6) Potential sites were considered by officers of the Department of Housing and Works and Museum staff. The summary of these considerations was provided to the ministerial steering committee on museum development. The decision by the ministerial steering committee was that the Kew Street site was the most favourable. A copy of the summary document is attached. I seek leave to table that. (7) Officers in the acquisitions section of the Department of Housing and Works routinely inspect the commercial property market as part of their usual duties, and it is through this process that the Kew Street property came to the Government’s attention. [See paper No 2963.]
(3) Why did the minister refuse to table the full evaluation of the Welshpool site undertaken by the Valuer General’s office? (4) Will the minister table the full evaluation; and, if not, why not? (5) Will the minister table any advice given to her concerning the February incident at the Francis Street site that led to the closure decision; and, if not, why not? (6) Will the minister table documents showing evaluations made of the other buildings under consideration as listed in her answer; and, if not, why not? (7) Who was the officer who spotted the Welshpool building sale advertisement? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: On behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Culture and the Arts, I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) In the minister’s response to question on notice 2373, she indicated that Dr Morgan had provided a wide range of advice over a period of years relating to the asbestos risk in the Francis Street building, first identified more than 10 years ago and the subject of 16 reports and studies, as per the list supplied with parliamentary question on notice 2373. If the member can indicate to the minister which particular advice he is referring to, the minister will table it. (3) Part (11) of the response to question on notice 2373 provided the evaluation by the Valuer General’s office. A full copy of the report is attached. I seek leave to table that. (4) Not applicable. See response to question (3). (5) Attached is a briefing on the asbestos incident of Monday, 10 February 2003. I seek leave to table that. (6) Potential sites were considered by officers of the Department of Housing and Works and Museum staff. The summary of these considerations was provided to the ministerial steering committee on museum development. The decision by the ministerial steering committee was that the Kew Street site was the most favourable. A copy of the summary document is attached. I seek leave to table that. (7) Officers in the acquisitions section of the Department of Housing and Works routinely inspect the commercial property market as part of their usual duties, and it is through this process that the Kew Street property came to the Government’s attention. [See paper No 2963.]
(4) Will the minister table the full evaluation; and, if not, why not? (5) Will the minister table any advice given to her concerning the February incident at the Francis Street site that led to the closure decision; and, if not, why not? (6) Will the minister table documents showing evaluations made of the other buildings under consideration as listed in her answer; and, if not, why not? (7) Who was the officer who spotted the Welshpool building sale advertisement? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: On behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Culture and the Arts, I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) In the minister’s response to question on notice 2373, she indicated that Dr Morgan had provided a wide range of advice over a period of years relating to the asbestos risk in the Francis Street building, first identified more than 10 years ago and the subject of 16 reports and studies, as per the list supplied with parliamentary question on notice 2373. If the member can indicate to the minister which particular advice he is referring to, the minister will table it. (3) Part (11) of the response to question on notice 2373 provided the evaluation by the Valuer General’s office. A full copy of the report is attached. I seek leave to table that. (4) Not applicable. See response to question (3). (5) Attached is a briefing on the asbestos incident of Monday, 10 February 2003. I seek leave to table that. (6) Potential sites were considered by officers of the Department of Housing and Works and Museum staff. The summary of these considerations was provided to the ministerial steering committee on museum development. The decision by the ministerial steering committee was that the Kew Street site was the most favourable. A copy of the summary document is attached. I seek leave to table that. (7) Officers in the acquisitions section of the Department of Housing and Works routinely inspect the commercial property market as part of their usual duties, and it is through this process that the Kew Street property came to the Government’s attention. [See paper No 2963.]
(5) Will the minister table any advice given to her concerning the February incident at the Francis Street site that led to the closure decision; and, if not, why not? (6) Will the minister table documents showing evaluations made of the other buildings under consideration as listed in her answer; and, if not, why not? (7) Who was the officer who spotted the Welshpool building sale advertisement? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: On behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Culture and the Arts, I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) In the minister’s response to question on notice 2373, she indicated that Dr Morgan had provided a wide range of advice over a period of years relating to the asbestos risk in the Francis Street building, first identified more than 10 years ago and the subject of 16 reports and studies, as per the list supplied with parliamentary question on notice 2373. If the member can indicate to the minister which particular advice he is referring to, the minister will table it. (3) Part (11) of the response to question on notice 2373 provided the evaluation by the Valuer General’s office. A full copy of the report is attached. I seek leave to table that. (4) Not applicable. See response to question (3). (5) Attached is a briefing on the asbestos incident of Monday, 10 February 2003. I seek leave to table that. (6) Potential sites were considered by officers of the Department of Housing and Works and Museum staff. The summary of these considerations was provided to the ministerial steering committee on museum development. The decision by the ministerial steering committee was that the Kew Street site was the most favourable. A copy of the summary document is attached. I seek leave to table that. (7) Officers in the acquisitions section of the Department of Housing and Works routinely inspect the commercial property market as part of their usual duties, and it is through this process that the Kew Street property came to the Government’s attention. [See paper No 2963.]
(6) Will the minister table documents showing evaluations made of the other buildings under consideration as listed in her answer; and, if not, why not? (7) Who was the officer who spotted the Welshpool building sale advertisement? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: On behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Culture and the Arts, I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) In the minister’s response to question on notice 2373, she indicated that Dr Morgan had provided a wide range of advice over a period of years relating to the asbestos risk in the Francis Street building, first identified more than 10 years ago and the subject of 16 reports and studies, as per the list supplied with parliamentary question on notice 2373. If the member can indicate to the minister which particular advice he is referring to, the minister will table it. (3) Part (11) of the response to question on notice 2373 provided the evaluation by the Valuer General’s office. A full copy of the report is attached. I seek leave to table that. (4) Not applicable. See response to question (3). (5) Attached is a briefing on the asbestos incident of Monday, 10 February 2003. I seek leave to table that. (6) Potential sites were considered by officers of the Department of Housing and Works and Museum staff. The summary of these considerations was provided to the ministerial steering committee on museum development. The decision by the ministerial steering committee was that the Kew Street site was the most favourable. A copy of the summary document is attached. I seek leave to table that. (7) Officers in the acquisitions section of the Department of Housing and Works routinely inspect the commercial property market as part of their usual duties, and it is through this process that the Kew Street property came to the Government’s attention. [See paper No 2963.]
(7) Who was the officer who spotted the Welshpool building sale advertisement? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: On behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Culture and the Arts, I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) In the minister’s response to question on notice 2373, she indicated that Dr Morgan had provided a wide range of advice over a period of years relating to the asbestos risk in the Francis Street building, first identified more than 10 years ago and the subject of 16 reports and studies, as per the list supplied with parliamentary question on notice 2373. If the member can indicate to the minister which particular advice he is referring to, the minister will table it. (3) Part (11) of the response to question on notice 2373 provided the evaluation by the Valuer General’s office. A full copy of the report is attached. I seek leave to table that. (4) Not applicable. See response to question (3). (5) Attached is a briefing on the asbestos incident of Monday, 10 February 2003. I seek leave to table that. (6) Potential sites were considered by officers of the Department of Housing and Works and Museum staff. The summary of these considerations was provided to the ministerial steering committee on museum development. The decision by the ministerial steering committee was that the Kew Street site was the most favourable. A copy of the summary document is attached. I seek leave to table that. (7) Officers in the acquisitions section of the Department of Housing and Works routinely inspect the commercial property market as part of their usual duties, and it is through this process that the Kew Street property came to the Government’s attention. [See paper No 2963.]
Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: On behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Culture and the Arts, I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) In the minister’s response to question on notice 2373, she indicated that Dr Morgan had provided a wide range of advice over a period of years relating to the asbestos risk in the Francis Street building, first identified more than 10 years ago and the subject of 16 reports and studies, as per the list supplied with parliamentary question on notice 2373. If the member can indicate to the minister which particular advice he is referring to, the minister will table it. (3) Part (11) of the response to question on notice 2373 provided the evaluation by the Valuer General’s office. A full copy of the report is attached. I seek leave to table that. (4) Not applicable. See response to question (3). (5) Attached is a briefing on the asbestos incident of Monday, 10 February 2003. I seek leave to table that. (6) Potential sites were considered by officers of the Department of Housing and Works and Museum staff. The summary of these considerations was provided to the ministerial steering committee on museum development. The decision by the ministerial steering committee was that the Kew Street site was the most favourable. A copy of the summary document is attached. I seek leave to table that. (7) Officers in the acquisitions section of the Department of Housing and Works routinely inspect the commercial property market as part of their usual duties, and it is through this process that the Kew Street property came to the Government’s attention. [See paper No 2963.]
On behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Culture and the Arts, I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) In the minister’s response to question on notice 2373, she indicated that Dr Morgan had provided a wide range of advice over a period of years relating to the asbestos risk in the Francis Street building, first identified more than 10 years ago and the subject of 16 reports and studies, as per the list supplied with parliamentary question on notice 2373. If the member can indicate to the minister which particular advice he is referring to, the minister will table it. (3) Part (11) of the response to question on notice 2373 provided the evaluation by the Valuer General’s office. A full copy of the report is attached. I seek leave to table that. (4) Not applicable. See response to question (3). (5) Attached is a briefing on the asbestos incident of Monday, 10 February 2003. I seek leave to table that. (6) Potential sites were considered by officers of the Department of Housing and Works and Museum staff. The summary of these considerations was provided to the ministerial steering committee on museum development. The decision by the ministerial steering committee was that the Kew Street site was the most favourable. A copy of the summary document is attached. I seek leave to table that. (7) Officers in the acquisitions section of the Department of Housing and Works routinely inspect the commercial property market as part of their usual duties, and it is through this process that the Kew Street property came to the Government’s attention. [See paper No 2963.]
(1)-(2) In the minister’s response to question on notice 2373, she indicated that Dr Morgan had provided a wide range of advice over a period of years relating to the asbestos risk in the Francis Street building, first identified more than 10 years ago and the subject of 16 reports and studies, as per the list supplied with parliamentary question on notice 2373. If the member can indicate to the minister which particular advice he is referring to, the minister will table it. (3) Part (11) of the response to question on notice 2373 provided the evaluation by the Valuer General’s office. A full copy of the report is attached. I seek leave to table that. (4) Not applicable. See response to question (3). (5) Attached is a briefing on the asbestos incident of Monday, 10 February 2003. I seek leave to table that. (6) Potential sites were considered by officers of the Department of Housing and Works and Museum staff. The summary of these considerations was provided to the ministerial steering committee on museum development. The decision by the ministerial steering committee was that the Kew Street site was the most favourable. A copy of the summary document is attached. I seek leave to table that. (7) Officers in the acquisitions section of the Department of Housing and Works routinely inspect the commercial property market as part of their usual duties, and it is through this process that the Kew Street property came to the Government’s attention. [See paper No 2963.]
(3) Part (11) of the response to question on notice 2373 provided the evaluation by the Valuer General’s office. A full copy of the report is attached. I seek leave to table that. (4) Not applicable. See response to question (3). (5) Attached is a briefing on the asbestos incident of Monday, 10 February 2003. I seek leave to table that. (6) Potential sites were considered by officers of the Department of Housing and Works and Museum staff. The summary of these considerations was provided to the ministerial steering committee on museum development. The decision by the ministerial steering committee was that the Kew Street site was the most favourable. A copy of the summary document is attached. I seek leave to table that. (7) Officers in the acquisitions section of the Department of Housing and Works routinely inspect the commercial property market as part of their usual duties, and it is through this process that the Kew Street property came to the Government’s attention. [See paper No 2963.]
(4) Not applicable. See response to question (3). (5) Attached is a briefing on the asbestos incident of Monday, 10 February 2003. I seek leave to table that. (6) Potential sites were considered by officers of the Department of Housing and Works and Museum staff. The summary of these considerations was provided to the ministerial steering committee on museum development. The decision by the ministerial steering committee was that the Kew Street site was the most favourable. A copy of the summary document is attached. I seek leave to table that. (7) Officers in the acquisitions section of the Department of Housing and Works routinely inspect the commercial property market as part of their usual duties, and it is through this process that the Kew Street property came to the Government’s attention. [See paper No 2963.]
(5) Attached is a briefing on the asbestos incident of Monday, 10 February 2003. I seek leave to table that. (6) Potential sites were considered by officers of the Department of Housing and Works and Museum staff. The summary of these considerations was provided to the ministerial steering committee on museum development. The decision by the ministerial steering committee was that the Kew Street site was the most favourable. A copy of the summary document is attached. I seek leave to table that. (7) Officers in the acquisitions section of the Department of Housing and Works routinely inspect the commercial property market as part of their usual duties, and it is through this process that the Kew Street property came to the Government’s attention. [See paper No 2963.]
(6) Potential sites were considered by officers of the Department of Housing and Works and Museum staff. The summary of these considerations was provided to the ministerial steering committee on museum development. The decision by the ministerial steering committee was that the Kew Street site was the most favourable. A copy of the summary document is attached. I seek leave to table that. (7) Officers in the acquisitions section of the Department of Housing and Works routinely inspect the commercial property market as part of their usual duties, and it is through this process that the Kew Street property came to the Government’s attention. [See paper No 2963.]
(7) Officers in the acquisitions section of the Department of Housing and Works routinely inspect the commercial property market as part of their usual duties, and it is through this process that the Kew Street property came to the Government’s attention. [See paper No 2963.]
[See paper No 2963.]
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.