❓ The Premier responds to questions regarding the potential redevelopment of the old Perth Observatory and the relocation of staff from Hale House, outlining plans for a broader government precinct development.
AnsweredQoN 156Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
PREMIER’S OFFICE — RELOCATION COSTS
(1) Can the Premier confirm that he will redevelop the old Perth Observatory as a reception centre and ballroom neighbouring his Hale House palace? (2) How much will it cost to redevelop the old Perth Observatory (3) Coming back to Hale House, can the Premier confirm that 40 visiting teachers at the Centre for Inclusive Schooling at Hale House have been given just one week’s notice to vacate the building? (4) Can the Premier also confirm that they are being relocated to Beechboro, and that the school psychologist currently housed in Beechboro has been required to vacate that premises by Monday? Mr C.J. BARNETT
(1) Can the Premier confirm that he will redevelop the old Perth Observatory as a reception centre and ballroom neighbouring his Hale House palace? (2) How much will it cost to redevelop the old Perth Observatory (3) Coming back to Hale House, can the Premier confirm that 40 visiting teachers at the Centre for Inclusive Schooling at Hale House have been given just one week’s notice to vacate the building? (4) Can the Premier also confirm that they are being relocated to Beechboro, and that the school psychologist currently housed in Beechboro has been required to vacate that premises by Monday? Mr C.J. BARNETT
AnswerView source ↗
(1)–(4) There are two issues: the first relates to the old Observatory building. The State Architect has looked at the broader parliamentary precinct, as he should. I have to say that he is enthusiastic about refurbishing Hale House, as are most heritage architects that I have heard from. Obviously, there is a broader concept; it is still a bit of a moving feast as to what might happen in that heritage precinct. When I foreshadowed that there would be probably be at least one, if not two new government buildings built alongside Dumas House sometime over this decade — Mr P.B. Watson : Maybe summer palaces? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, they will be appropriate accommodation for the central agencies of government, which would be the Public Sector Commission, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and the Department of Treasury and Finance. As has also been detailed in the announcements that have been made, most government ministers will be located in Dumas House and there will also be public sector departments—the central agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you confirming there is a plan for the old Observatory? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am getting to the old Observatory. I am saying that there is a broad view about how that will ultimately develop. It means that government will move progressively out of high-cost rental accommodation in the central business district into government-owned buildings on government land in the parliamentary precinct. I think that is sensible; it will certainly save very large amounts of money for the government. There is something very appropriate about a government precinct next to Parliament, outside of the central business district area. The old Observatory building, which I am sure is heritage listed, is not the biggest building in the world—if anyone has been inside it. The suggestion that it could be a ballroom is a bit of a stretch; it would hold three dancers, and that would be it! My understanding of what the Leader of the Opposition is referring to is that in some of the discussions the National Trust had suggested that it would leave the site and that it be used as a central facility for government departments in the area. I think that is probably not a bad idea, but the government has no plan to redevelop that building. It is a heritage building that will stay as it is. As far as I am concerned, the National Trust can stay there in the immediate future. Ultimately, it might become a meeting room that is shared by government agencies—I do not know what it will used for—and the public should have access to it, because part of the development of the precinct is to have wide walkways connecting not only the parliamentary side but also West Perth to Kings Park. It will be a very attractive public landscaped area. The old Observatory sits right at the centre of it. It should be a facility that public servants and visitors to the area can use, whether it is a cafe or what—I do not know. The government has no plans to take over that building and do anything in particular with it. It will stay there with the National Trust, and it may become a broader public facility. There will be literally thousands of workers in that precinct, so why not have a cafe or whatever in the middle of it; it is a good idea. With respect to Hale House, the Leader of the Opposition’s number is probably right—about 40 teachers work from there in delivering therapy services and the like in schools. They have known for some time, certainly from when the announcement was made back in February, that they would be relocated to other Department of Education property and, although not as central as that location, probably in better accommodation. If any member is curious and wants to look at Hale House, they will see that it is not up to the standard of accommodation that any worker, let alone government workers, should have. In many parts, the building is dilapidated; it is crowded and not in good condition. I have discussed that with the staff members. The reaction of the few I spoke to was that would be great. One of my staff suggested to them that we would invite them back to have a look. Most of the staff were very excited that the building was going to be restored to heritage standard. There is a relocation, but they accept that and they will probably have a better working environment.
(2) How much will it cost to redevelop the old Perth Observatory (3) Coming back to Hale House, can the Premier confirm that 40 visiting teachers at the Centre for Inclusive Schooling at Hale House have been given just one week’s notice to vacate the building? (4) Can the Premier also confirm that they are being relocated to Beechboro, and that the school psychologist currently housed in Beechboro has been required to vacate that premises by Monday? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(4) There are two issues: the first relates to the old Observatory building. The State Architect has looked at the broader parliamentary precinct, as he should. I have to say that he is enthusiastic about refurbishing Hale House, as are most heritage architects that I have heard from. Obviously, there is a broader concept; it is still a bit of a moving feast as to what might happen in that heritage precinct. When I foreshadowed that there would be probably be at least one, if not two new government buildings built alongside Dumas House sometime over this decade — Mr P.B. Watson : Maybe summer palaces? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, they will be appropriate accommodation for the central agencies of government, which would be the Public Sector Commission, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and the Department of Treasury and Finance. As has also been detailed in the announcements that have been made, most government ministers will be located in Dumas House and there will also be public sector departments—the central agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you confirming there is a plan for the old Observatory? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am getting to the old Observatory. I am saying that there is a broad view about how that will ultimately develop. It means that government will move progressively out of high-cost rental accommodation in the central business district into government-owned buildings on government land in the parliamentary precinct. I think that is sensible; it will certainly save very large amounts of money for the government. There is something very appropriate about a government precinct next to Parliament, outside of the central business district area. The old Observatory building, which I am sure is heritage listed, is not the biggest building in the world—if anyone has been inside it. The suggestion that it could be a ballroom is a bit of a stretch; it would hold three dancers, and that would be it! My understanding of what the Leader of the Opposition is referring to is that in some of the discussions the National Trust had suggested that it would leave the site and that it be used as a central facility for government departments in the area. I think that is probably not a bad idea, but the government has no plan to redevelop that building. It is a heritage building that will stay as it is. As far as I am concerned, the National Trust can stay there in the immediate future. Ultimately, it might become a meeting room that is shared by government agencies—I do not know what it will used for—and the public should have access to it, because part of the development of the precinct is to have wide walkways connecting not only the parliamentary side but also West Perth to Kings Park. It will be a very attractive public landscaped area. The old Observatory sits right at the centre of it. It should be a facility that public servants and visitors to the area can use, whether it is a cafe or what—I do not know. The government has no plans to take over that building and do anything in particular with it. It will stay there with the National Trust, and it may become a broader public facility. There will be literally thousands of workers in that precinct, so why not have a cafe or whatever in the middle of it; it is a good idea. With respect to Hale House, the Leader of the Opposition’s number is probably right—about 40 teachers work from there in delivering therapy services and the like in schools. They have known for some time, certainly from when the announcement was made back in February, that they would be relocated to other Department of Education property and, although not as central as that location, probably in better accommodation. If any member is curious and wants to look at Hale House, they will see that it is not up to the standard of accommodation that any worker, let alone government workers, should have. In many parts, the building is dilapidated; it is crowded and not in good condition. I have discussed that with the staff members. The reaction of the few I spoke to was that would be great. One of my staff suggested to them that we would invite them back to have a look. Most of the staff were very excited that the building was going to be restored to heritage standard. There is a relocation, but they accept that and they will probably have a better working environment.
(3) Coming back to Hale House, can the Premier confirm that 40 visiting teachers at the Centre for Inclusive Schooling at Hale House have been given just one week’s notice to vacate the building? (4) Can the Premier also confirm that they are being relocated to Beechboro, and that the school psychologist currently housed in Beechboro has been required to vacate that premises by Monday? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(4) There are two issues: the first relates to the old Observatory building. The State Architect has looked at the broader parliamentary precinct, as he should. I have to say that he is enthusiastic about refurbishing Hale House, as are most heritage architects that I have heard from. Obviously, there is a broader concept; it is still a bit of a moving feast as to what might happen in that heritage precinct. When I foreshadowed that there would be probably be at least one, if not two new government buildings built alongside Dumas House sometime over this decade — Mr P.B. Watson : Maybe summer palaces? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, they will be appropriate accommodation for the central agencies of government, which would be the Public Sector Commission, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and the Department of Treasury and Finance. As has also been detailed in the announcements that have been made, most government ministers will be located in Dumas House and there will also be public sector departments—the central agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you confirming there is a plan for the old Observatory? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am getting to the old Observatory. I am saying that there is a broad view about how that will ultimately develop. It means that government will move progressively out of high-cost rental accommodation in the central business district into government-owned buildings on government land in the parliamentary precinct. I think that is sensible; it will certainly save very large amounts of money for the government. There is something very appropriate about a government precinct next to Parliament, outside of the central business district area. The old Observatory building, which I am sure is heritage listed, is not the biggest building in the world—if anyone has been inside it. The suggestion that it could be a ballroom is a bit of a stretch; it would hold three dancers, and that would be it! My understanding of what the Leader of the Opposition is referring to is that in some of the discussions the National Trust had suggested that it would leave the site and that it be used as a central facility for government departments in the area. I think that is probably not a bad idea, but the government has no plan to redevelop that building. It is a heritage building that will stay as it is. As far as I am concerned, the National Trust can stay there in the immediate future. Ultimately, it might become a meeting room that is shared by government agencies—I do not know what it will used for—and the public should have access to it, because part of the development of the precinct is to have wide walkways connecting not only the parliamentary side but also West Perth to Kings Park. It will be a very attractive public landscaped area. The old Observatory sits right at the centre of it. It should be a facility that public servants and visitors to the area can use, whether it is a cafe or what—I do not know. The government has no plans to take over that building and do anything in particular with it. It will stay there with the National Trust, and it may become a broader public facility. There will be literally thousands of workers in that precinct, so why not have a cafe or whatever in the middle of it; it is a good idea. With respect to Hale House, the Leader of the Opposition’s number is probably right—about 40 teachers work from there in delivering therapy services and the like in schools. They have known for some time, certainly from when the announcement was made back in February, that they would be relocated to other Department of Education property and, although not as central as that location, probably in better accommodation. If any member is curious and wants to look at Hale House, they will see that it is not up to the standard of accommodation that any worker, let alone government workers, should have. In many parts, the building is dilapidated; it is crowded and not in good condition. I have discussed that with the staff members. The reaction of the few I spoke to was that would be great. One of my staff suggested to them that we would invite them back to have a look. Most of the staff were very excited that the building was going to be restored to heritage standard. There is a relocation, but they accept that and they will probably have a better working environment.
(4) Can the Premier also confirm that they are being relocated to Beechboro, and that the school psychologist currently housed in Beechboro has been required to vacate that premises by Monday? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(4) There are two issues: the first relates to the old Observatory building. The State Architect has looked at the broader parliamentary precinct, as he should. I have to say that he is enthusiastic about refurbishing Hale House, as are most heritage architects that I have heard from. Obviously, there is a broader concept; it is still a bit of a moving feast as to what might happen in that heritage precinct. When I foreshadowed that there would be probably be at least one, if not two new government buildings built alongside Dumas House sometime over this decade — Mr P.B. Watson : Maybe summer palaces? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, they will be appropriate accommodation for the central agencies of government, which would be the Public Sector Commission, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and the Department of Treasury and Finance. As has also been detailed in the announcements that have been made, most government ministers will be located in Dumas House and there will also be public sector departments—the central agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you confirming there is a plan for the old Observatory? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am getting to the old Observatory. I am saying that there is a broad view about how that will ultimately develop. It means that government will move progressively out of high-cost rental accommodation in the central business district into government-owned buildings on government land in the parliamentary precinct. I think that is sensible; it will certainly save very large amounts of money for the government. There is something very appropriate about a government precinct next to Parliament, outside of the central business district area. The old Observatory building, which I am sure is heritage listed, is not the biggest building in the world—if anyone has been inside it. The suggestion that it could be a ballroom is a bit of a stretch; it would hold three dancers, and that would be it! My understanding of what the Leader of the Opposition is referring to is that in some of the discussions the National Trust had suggested that it would leave the site and that it be used as a central facility for government departments in the area. I think that is probably not a bad idea, but the government has no plan to redevelop that building. It is a heritage building that will stay as it is. As far as I am concerned, the National Trust can stay there in the immediate future. Ultimately, it might become a meeting room that is shared by government agencies—I do not know what it will used for—and the public should have access to it, because part of the development of the precinct is to have wide walkways connecting not only the parliamentary side but also West Perth to Kings Park. It will be a very attractive public landscaped area. The old Observatory sits right at the centre of it. It should be a facility that public servants and visitors to the area can use, whether it is a cafe or what—I do not know. The government has no plans to take over that building and do anything in particular with it. It will stay there with the National Trust, and it may become a broader public facility. There will be literally thousands of workers in that precinct, so why not have a cafe or whatever in the middle of it; it is a good idea. With respect to Hale House, the Leader of the Opposition’s number is probably right—about 40 teachers work from there in delivering therapy services and the like in schools. They have known for some time, certainly from when the announcement was made back in February, that they would be relocated to other Department of Education property and, although not as central as that location, probably in better accommodation. If any member is curious and wants to look at Hale House, they will see that it is not up to the standard of accommodation that any worker, let alone government workers, should have. In many parts, the building is dilapidated; it is crowded and not in good condition. I have discussed that with the staff members. The reaction of the few I spoke to was that would be great. One of my staff suggested to them that we would invite them back to have a look. Most of the staff were very excited that the building was going to be restored to heritage standard. There is a relocation, but they accept that and they will probably have a better working environment.
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(4) There are two issues: the first relates to the old Observatory building. The State Architect has looked at the broader parliamentary precinct, as he should. I have to say that he is enthusiastic about refurbishing Hale House, as are most heritage architects that I have heard from. Obviously, there is a broader concept; it is still a bit of a moving feast as to what might happen in that heritage precinct. When I foreshadowed that there would be probably be at least one, if not two new government buildings built alongside Dumas House sometime over this decade — Mr P.B. Watson : Maybe summer palaces? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, they will be appropriate accommodation for the central agencies of government, which would be the Public Sector Commission, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and the Department of Treasury and Finance. As has also been detailed in the announcements that have been made, most government ministers will be located in Dumas House and there will also be public sector departments—the central agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you confirming there is a plan for the old Observatory? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am getting to the old Observatory. I am saying that there is a broad view about how that will ultimately develop. It means that government will move progressively out of high-cost rental accommodation in the central business district into government-owned buildings on government land in the parliamentary precinct. I think that is sensible; it will certainly save very large amounts of money for the government. There is something very appropriate about a government precinct next to Parliament, outside of the central business district area. The old Observatory building, which I am sure is heritage listed, is not the biggest building in the world—if anyone has been inside it. The suggestion that it could be a ballroom is a bit of a stretch; it would hold three dancers, and that would be it! My understanding of what the Leader of the Opposition is referring to is that in some of the discussions the National Trust had suggested that it would leave the site and that it be used as a central facility for government departments in the area. I think that is probably not a bad idea, but the government has no plan to redevelop that building. It is a heritage building that will stay as it is. As far as I am concerned, the National Trust can stay there in the immediate future. Ultimately, it might become a meeting room that is shared by government agencies—I do not know what it will used for—and the public should have access to it, because part of the development of the precinct is to have wide walkways connecting not only the parliamentary side but also West Perth to Kings Park. It will be a very attractive public landscaped area. The old Observatory sits right at the centre of it. It should be a facility that public servants and visitors to the area can use, whether it is a cafe or what—I do not know. The government has no plans to take over that building and do anything in particular with it. It will stay there with the National Trust, and it may become a broader public facility. There will be literally thousands of workers in that precinct, so why not have a cafe or whatever in the middle of it; it is a good idea. With respect to Hale House, the Leader of the Opposition’s number is probably right—about 40 teachers work from there in delivering therapy services and the like in schools. They have known for some time, certainly from when the announcement was made back in February, that they would be relocated to other Department of Education property and, although not as central as that location, probably in better accommodation. If any member is curious and wants to look at Hale House, they will see that it is not up to the standard of accommodation that any worker, let alone government workers, should have. In many parts, the building is dilapidated; it is crowded and not in good condition. I have discussed that with the staff members. The reaction of the few I spoke to was that would be great. One of my staff suggested to them that we would invite them back to have a look. Most of the staff were very excited that the building was going to be restored to heritage standard. There is a relocation, but they accept that and they will probably have a better working environment.
(1)–(4) There are two issues: the first relates to the old Observatory building. The State Architect has looked at the broader parliamentary precinct, as he should. I have to say that he is enthusiastic about refurbishing Hale House, as are most heritage architects that I have heard from. Obviously, there is a broader concept; it is still a bit of a moving feast as to what might happen in that heritage precinct. When I foreshadowed that there would be probably be at least one, if not two new government buildings built alongside Dumas House sometime over this decade — Mr P.B. Watson : Maybe summer palaces? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, they will be appropriate accommodation for the central agencies of government, which would be the Public Sector Commission, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and the Department of Treasury and Finance. As has also been detailed in the announcements that have been made, most government ministers will be located in Dumas House and there will also be public sector departments—the central agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you confirming there is a plan for the old Observatory? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am getting to the old Observatory. I am saying that there is a broad view about how that will ultimately develop. It means that government will move progressively out of high-cost rental accommodation in the central business district into government-owned buildings on government land in the parliamentary precinct. I think that is sensible; it will certainly save very large amounts of money for the government. There is something very appropriate about a government precinct next to Parliament, outside of the central business district area. The old Observatory building, which I am sure is heritage listed, is not the biggest building in the world—if anyone has been inside it. The suggestion that it could be a ballroom is a bit of a stretch; it would hold three dancers, and that would be it! My understanding of what the Leader of the Opposition is referring to is that in some of the discussions the National Trust had suggested that it would leave the site and that it be used as a central facility for government departments in the area. I think that is probably not a bad idea, but the government has no plan to redevelop that building. It is a heritage building that will stay as it is. As far as I am concerned, the National Trust can stay there in the immediate future. Ultimately, it might become a meeting room that is shared by government agencies—I do not know what it will used for—and the public should have access to it, because part of the development of the precinct is to have wide walkways connecting not only the parliamentary side but also West Perth to Kings Park. It will be a very attractive public landscaped area. The old Observatory sits right at the centre of it. It should be a facility that public servants and visitors to the area can use, whether it is a cafe or what—I do not know. The government has no plans to take over that building and do anything in particular with it. It will stay there with the National Trust, and it may become a broader public facility. There will be literally thousands of workers in that precinct, so why not have a cafe or whatever in the middle of it; it is a good idea. With respect to Hale House, the Leader of the Opposition’s number is probably right—about 40 teachers work from there in delivering therapy services and the like in schools. They have known for some time, certainly from when the announcement was made back in February, that they would be relocated to other Department of Education property and, although not as central as that location, probably in better accommodation. If any member is curious and wants to look at Hale House, they will see that it is not up to the standard of accommodation that any worker, let alone government workers, should have. In many parts, the building is dilapidated; it is crowded and not in good condition. I have discussed that with the staff members. The reaction of the few I spoke to was that would be great. One of my staff suggested to them that we would invite them back to have a look. Most of the staff were very excited that the building was going to be restored to heritage standard. There is a relocation, but they accept that and they will probably have a better working environment.
Mr P.B. Watson : Maybe summer palaces? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, they will be appropriate accommodation for the central agencies of government, which would be the Public Sector Commission, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and the Department of Treasury and Finance. As has also been detailed in the announcements that have been made, most government ministers will be located in Dumas House and there will also be public sector departments—the central agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you confirming there is a plan for the old Observatory? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am getting to the old Observatory. I am saying that there is a broad view about how that will ultimately develop. It means that government will move progressively out of high-cost rental accommodation in the central business district into government-owned buildings on government land in the parliamentary precinct. I think that is sensible; it will certainly save very large amounts of money for the government. There is something very appropriate about a government precinct next to Parliament, outside of the central business district area. The old Observatory building, which I am sure is heritage listed, is not the biggest building in the world—if anyone has been inside it. The suggestion that it could be a ballroom is a bit of a stretch; it would hold three dancers, and that would be it! My understanding of what the Leader of the Opposition is referring to is that in some of the discussions the National Trust had suggested that it would leave the site and that it be used as a central facility for government departments in the area. I think that is probably not a bad idea, but the government has no plan to redevelop that building. It is a heritage building that will stay as it is. As far as I am concerned, the National Trust can stay there in the immediate future. Ultimately, it might become a meeting room that is shared by government agencies—I do not know what it will used for—and the public should have access to it, because part of the development of the precinct is to have wide walkways connecting not only the parliamentary side but also West Perth to Kings Park. It will be a very attractive public landscaped area. The old Observatory sits right at the centre of it. It should be a facility that public servants and visitors to the area can use, whether it is a cafe or what—I do not know. The government has no plans to take over that building and do anything in particular with it. It will stay there with the National Trust, and it may become a broader public facility. There will be literally thousands of workers in that precinct, so why not have a cafe or whatever in the middle of it; it is a good idea. With respect to Hale House, the Leader of the Opposition’s number is probably right—about 40 teachers work from there in delivering therapy services and the like in schools. They have known for some time, certainly from when the announcement was made back in February, that they would be relocated to other Department of Education property and, although not as central as that location, probably in better accommodation. If any member is curious and wants to look at Hale House, they will see that it is not up to the standard of accommodation that any worker, let alone government workers, should have. In many parts, the building is dilapidated; it is crowded and not in good condition. I have discussed that with the staff members. The reaction of the few I spoke to was that would be great. One of my staff suggested to them that we would invite them back to have a look. Most of the staff were very excited that the building was going to be restored to heritage standard. There is a relocation, but they accept that and they will probably have a better working environment.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, they will be appropriate accommodation for the central agencies of government, which would be the Public Sector Commission, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and the Department of Treasury and Finance. As has also been detailed in the announcements that have been made, most government ministers will be located in Dumas House and there will also be public sector departments—the central agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you confirming there is a plan for the old Observatory? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am getting to the old Observatory. I am saying that there is a broad view about how that will ultimately develop. It means that government will move progressively out of high-cost rental accommodation in the central business district into government-owned buildings on government land in the parliamentary precinct. I think that is sensible; it will certainly save very large amounts of money for the government. There is something very appropriate about a government precinct next to Parliament, outside of the central business district area. The old Observatory building, which I am sure is heritage listed, is not the biggest building in the world—if anyone has been inside it. The suggestion that it could be a ballroom is a bit of a stretch; it would hold three dancers, and that would be it! My understanding of what the Leader of the Opposition is referring to is that in some of the discussions the National Trust had suggested that it would leave the site and that it be used as a central facility for government departments in the area. I think that is probably not a bad idea, but the government has no plan to redevelop that building. It is a heritage building that will stay as it is. As far as I am concerned, the National Trust can stay there in the immediate future. Ultimately, it might become a meeting room that is shared by government agencies—I do not know what it will used for—and the public should have access to it, because part of the development of the precinct is to have wide walkways connecting not only the parliamentary side but also West Perth to Kings Park. It will be a very attractive public landscaped area. The old Observatory sits right at the centre of it. It should be a facility that public servants and visitors to the area can use, whether it is a cafe or what—I do not know. The government has no plans to take over that building and do anything in particular with it. It will stay there with the National Trust, and it may become a broader public facility. There will be literally thousands of workers in that precinct, so why not have a cafe or whatever in the middle of it; it is a good idea. With respect to Hale House, the Leader of the Opposition’s number is probably right—about 40 teachers work from there in delivering therapy services and the like in schools. They have known for some time, certainly from when the announcement was made back in February, that they would be relocated to other Department of Education property and, although not as central as that location, probably in better accommodation. If any member is curious and wants to look at Hale House, they will see that it is not up to the standard of accommodation that any worker, let alone government workers, should have. In many parts, the building is dilapidated; it is crowded and not in good condition. I have discussed that with the staff members. The reaction of the few I spoke to was that would be great. One of my staff suggested to them that we would invite them back to have a look. Most of the staff were very excited that the building was going to be restored to heritage standard. There is a relocation, but they accept that and they will probably have a better working environment.
Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you confirming there is a plan for the old Observatory? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am getting to the old Observatory. I am saying that there is a broad view about how that will ultimately develop. It means that government will move progressively out of high-cost rental accommodation in the central business district into government-owned buildings on government land in the parliamentary precinct. I think that is sensible; it will certainly save very large amounts of money for the government. There is something very appropriate about a government precinct next to Parliament, outside of the central business district area. The old Observatory building, which I am sure is heritage listed, is not the biggest building in the world—if anyone has been inside it. The suggestion that it could be a ballroom is a bit of a stretch; it would hold three dancers, and that would be it! My understanding of what the Leader of the Opposition is referring to is that in some of the discussions the National Trust had suggested that it would leave the site and that it be used as a central facility for government departments in the area. I think that is probably not a bad idea, but the government has no plan to redevelop that building. It is a heritage building that will stay as it is. As far as I am concerned, the National Trust can stay there in the immediate future. Ultimately, it might become a meeting room that is shared by government agencies—I do not know what it will used for—and the public should have access to it, because part of the development of the precinct is to have wide walkways connecting not only the parliamentary side but also West Perth to Kings Park. It will be a very attractive public landscaped area. The old Observatory sits right at the centre of it. It should be a facility that public servants and visitors to the area can use, whether it is a cafe or what—I do not know. The government has no plans to take over that building and do anything in particular with it. It will stay there with the National Trust, and it may become a broader public facility. There will be literally thousands of workers in that precinct, so why not have a cafe or whatever in the middle of it; it is a good idea. With respect to Hale House, the Leader of the Opposition’s number is probably right—about 40 teachers work from there in delivering therapy services and the like in schools. They have known for some time, certainly from when the announcement was made back in February, that they would be relocated to other Department of Education property and, although not as central as that location, probably in better accommodation. If any member is curious and wants to look at Hale House, they will see that it is not up to the standard of accommodation that any worker, let alone government workers, should have. In many parts, the building is dilapidated; it is crowded and not in good condition. I have discussed that with the staff members. The reaction of the few I spoke to was that would be great. One of my staff suggested to them that we would invite them back to have a look. Most of the staff were very excited that the building was going to be restored to heritage standard. There is a relocation, but they accept that and they will probably have a better working environment.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am getting to the old Observatory. I am saying that there is a broad view about how that will ultimately develop. It means that government will move progressively out of high-cost rental accommodation in the central business district into government-owned buildings on government land in the parliamentary precinct. I think that is sensible; it will certainly save very large amounts of money for the government. There is something very appropriate about a government precinct next to Parliament, outside of the central business district area. The old Observatory building, which I am sure is heritage listed, is not the biggest building in the world—if anyone has been inside it. The suggestion that it could be a ballroom is a bit of a stretch; it would hold three dancers, and that would be it! My understanding of what the Leader of the Opposition is referring to is that in some of the discussions the National Trust had suggested that it would leave the site and that it be used as a central facility for government departments in the area. I think that is probably not a bad idea, but the government has no plan to redevelop that building. It is a heritage building that will stay as it is. As far as I am concerned, the National Trust can stay there in the immediate future. Ultimately, it might become a meeting room that is shared by government agencies—I do not know what it will used for—and the public should have access to it, because part of the development of the precinct is to have wide walkways connecting not only the parliamentary side but also West Perth to Kings Park. It will be a very attractive public landscaped area. The old Observatory sits right at the centre of it. It should be a facility that public servants and visitors to the area can use, whether it is a cafe or what—I do not know. The government has no plans to take over that building and do anything in particular with it. It will stay there with the National Trust, and it may become a broader public facility. There will be literally thousands of workers in that precinct, so why not have a cafe or whatever in the middle of it; it is a good idea. With respect to Hale House, the Leader of the Opposition’s number is probably right—about 40 teachers work from there in delivering therapy services and the like in schools. They have known for some time, certainly from when the announcement was made back in February, that they would be relocated to other Department of Education property and, although not as central as that location, probably in better accommodation. If any member is curious and wants to look at Hale House, they will see that it is not up to the standard of accommodation that any worker, let alone government workers, should have. In many parts, the building is dilapidated; it is crowded and not in good condition. I have discussed that with the staff members. The reaction of the few I spoke to was that would be great. One of my staff suggested to them that we would invite them back to have a look. Most of the staff were very excited that the building was going to be restored to heritage standard. There is a relocation, but they accept that and they will probably have a better working environment.
The old Observatory building, which I am sure is heritage listed, is not the biggest building in the world—if anyone has been inside it. The suggestion that it could be a ballroom is a bit of a stretch; it would hold three dancers, and that would be it! My understanding of what the Leader of the Opposition is referring to is that in some of the discussions the National Trust had suggested that it would leave the site and that it be used as a central facility for government departments in the area. I think that is probably not a bad idea, but the government has no plan to redevelop that building. It is a heritage building that will stay as it is. As far as I am concerned, the National Trust can stay there in the immediate future. Ultimately, it might become a meeting room that is shared by government agencies—I do not know what it will used for—and the public should have access to it, because part of the development of the precinct is to have wide walkways connecting not only the parliamentary side but also West Perth to Kings Park. It will be a very attractive public landscaped area. The old Observatory sits right at the centre of it. It should be a facility that public servants and visitors to the area can use, whether it is a cafe or what—I do not know. The government has no plans to take over that building and do anything in particular with it. It will stay there with the National Trust, and it may become a broader public facility. There will be literally thousands of workers in that precinct, so why not have a cafe or whatever in the middle of it; it is a good idea. With respect to Hale House, the Leader of the Opposition’s number is probably right—about 40 teachers work from there in delivering therapy services and the like in schools. They have known for some time, certainly from when the announcement was made back in February, that they would be relocated to other Department of Education property and, although not as central as that location, probably in better accommodation. If any member is curious and wants to look at Hale House, they will see that it is not up to the standard of accommodation that any worker, let alone government workers, should have. In many parts, the building is dilapidated; it is crowded and not in good condition. I have discussed that with the staff members. The reaction of the few I spoke to was that would be great. One of my staff suggested to them that we would invite them back to have a look. Most of the staff were very excited that the building was going to be restored to heritage standard. There is a relocation, but they accept that and they will probably have a better working environment.
With respect to Hale House, the Leader of the Opposition’s number is probably right—about 40 teachers work from there in delivering therapy services and the like in schools. They have known for some time, certainly from when the announcement was made back in February, that they would be relocated to other Department of Education property and, although not as central as that location, probably in better accommodation. If any member is curious and wants to look at Hale House, they will see that it is not up to the standard of accommodation that any worker, let alone government workers, should have. In many parts, the building is dilapidated; it is crowded and not in good condition. I have discussed that with the staff members. The reaction of the few I spoke to was that would be great. One of my staff suggested to them that we would invite them back to have a look. Most of the staff were very excited that the building was going to be restored to heritage standard. There is a relocation, but they accept that and they will probably have a better working environment.
(2) How much will it cost to redevelop the old Perth Observatory (3) Coming back to Hale House, can the Premier confirm that 40 visiting teachers at the Centre for Inclusive Schooling at Hale House have been given just one week’s notice to vacate the building? (4) Can the Premier also confirm that they are being relocated to Beechboro, and that the school psychologist currently housed in Beechboro has been required to vacate that premises by Monday? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(4) There are two issues: the first relates to the old Observatory building. The State Architect has looked at the broader parliamentary precinct, as he should. I have to say that he is enthusiastic about refurbishing Hale House, as are most heritage architects that I have heard from. Obviously, there is a broader concept; it is still a bit of a moving feast as to what might happen in that heritage precinct. When I foreshadowed that there would be probably be at least one, if not two new government buildings built alongside Dumas House sometime over this decade — Mr P.B. Watson : Maybe summer palaces? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, they will be appropriate accommodation for the central agencies of government, which would be the Public Sector Commission, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and the Department of Treasury and Finance. As has also been detailed in the announcements that have been made, most government ministers will be located in Dumas House and there will also be public sector departments—the central agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you confirming there is a plan for the old Observatory? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am getting to the old Observatory. I am saying that there is a broad view about how that will ultimately develop. It means that government will move progressively out of high-cost rental accommodation in the central business district into government-owned buildings on government land in the parliamentary precinct. I think that is sensible; it will certainly save very large amounts of money for the government. There is something very appropriate about a government precinct next to Parliament, outside of the central business district area. The old Observatory building, which I am sure is heritage listed, is not the biggest building in the world—if anyone has been inside it. The suggestion that it could be a ballroom is a bit of a stretch; it would hold three dancers, and that would be it! My understanding of what the Leader of the Opposition is referring to is that in some of the discussions the National Trust had suggested that it would leave the site and that it be used as a central facility for government departments in the area. I think that is probably not a bad idea, but the government has no plan to redevelop that building. It is a heritage building that will stay as it is. As far as I am concerned, the National Trust can stay there in the immediate future. Ultimately, it might become a meeting room that is shared by government agencies—I do not know what it will used for—and the public should have access to it, because part of the development of the precinct is to have wide walkways connecting not only the parliamentary side but also West Perth to Kings Park. It will be a very attractive public landscaped area. The old Observatory sits right at the centre of it. It should be a facility that public servants and visitors to the area can use, whether it is a cafe or what—I do not know. The government has no plans to take over that building and do anything in particular with it. It will stay there with the National Trust, and it may become a broader public facility. There will be literally thousands of workers in that precinct, so why not have a cafe or whatever in the middle of it; it is a good idea. With respect to Hale House, the Leader of the Opposition’s number is probably right—about 40 teachers work from there in delivering therapy services and the like in schools. They have known for some time, certainly from when the announcement was made back in February, that they would be relocated to other Department of Education property and, although not as central as that location, probably in better accommodation. If any member is curious and wants to look at Hale House, they will see that it is not up to the standard of accommodation that any worker, let alone government workers, should have. In many parts, the building is dilapidated; it is crowded and not in good condition. I have discussed that with the staff members. The reaction of the few I spoke to was that would be great. One of my staff suggested to them that we would invite them back to have a look. Most of the staff were very excited that the building was going to be restored to heritage standard. There is a relocation, but they accept that and they will probably have a better working environment.
(3) Coming back to Hale House, can the Premier confirm that 40 visiting teachers at the Centre for Inclusive Schooling at Hale House have been given just one week’s notice to vacate the building? (4) Can the Premier also confirm that they are being relocated to Beechboro, and that the school psychologist currently housed in Beechboro has been required to vacate that premises by Monday? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(4) There are two issues: the first relates to the old Observatory building. The State Architect has looked at the broader parliamentary precinct, as he should. I have to say that he is enthusiastic about refurbishing Hale House, as are most heritage architects that I have heard from. Obviously, there is a broader concept; it is still a bit of a moving feast as to what might happen in that heritage precinct. When I foreshadowed that there would be probably be at least one, if not two new government buildings built alongside Dumas House sometime over this decade — Mr P.B. Watson : Maybe summer palaces? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, they will be appropriate accommodation for the central agencies of government, which would be the Public Sector Commission, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and the Department of Treasury and Finance. As has also been detailed in the announcements that have been made, most government ministers will be located in Dumas House and there will also be public sector departments—the central agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you confirming there is a plan for the old Observatory? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am getting to the old Observatory. I am saying that there is a broad view about how that will ultimately develop. It means that government will move progressively out of high-cost rental accommodation in the central business district into government-owned buildings on government land in the parliamentary precinct. I think that is sensible; it will certainly save very large amounts of money for the government. There is something very appropriate about a government precinct next to Parliament, outside of the central business district area. The old Observatory building, which I am sure is heritage listed, is not the biggest building in the world—if anyone has been inside it. The suggestion that it could be a ballroom is a bit of a stretch; it would hold three dancers, and that would be it! My understanding of what the Leader of the Opposition is referring to is that in some of the discussions the National Trust had suggested that it would leave the site and that it be used as a central facility for government departments in the area. I think that is probably not a bad idea, but the government has no plan to redevelop that building. It is a heritage building that will stay as it is. As far as I am concerned, the National Trust can stay there in the immediate future. Ultimately, it might become a meeting room that is shared by government agencies—I do not know what it will used for—and the public should have access to it, because part of the development of the precinct is to have wide walkways connecting not only the parliamentary side but also West Perth to Kings Park. It will be a very attractive public landscaped area. The old Observatory sits right at the centre of it. It should be a facility that public servants and visitors to the area can use, whether it is a cafe or what—I do not know. The government has no plans to take over that building and do anything in particular with it. It will stay there with the National Trust, and it may become a broader public facility. There will be literally thousands of workers in that precinct, so why not have a cafe or whatever in the middle of it; it is a good idea. With respect to Hale House, the Leader of the Opposition’s number is probably right—about 40 teachers work from there in delivering therapy services and the like in schools. They have known for some time, certainly from when the announcement was made back in February, that they would be relocated to other Department of Education property and, although not as central as that location, probably in better accommodation. If any member is curious and wants to look at Hale House, they will see that it is not up to the standard of accommodation that any worker, let alone government workers, should have. In many parts, the building is dilapidated; it is crowded and not in good condition. I have discussed that with the staff members. The reaction of the few I spoke to was that would be great. One of my staff suggested to them that we would invite them back to have a look. Most of the staff were very excited that the building was going to be restored to heritage standard. There is a relocation, but they accept that and they will probably have a better working environment.
(4) Can the Premier also confirm that they are being relocated to Beechboro, and that the school psychologist currently housed in Beechboro has been required to vacate that premises by Monday? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(4) There are two issues: the first relates to the old Observatory building. The State Architect has looked at the broader parliamentary precinct, as he should. I have to say that he is enthusiastic about refurbishing Hale House, as are most heritage architects that I have heard from. Obviously, there is a broader concept; it is still a bit of a moving feast as to what might happen in that heritage precinct. When I foreshadowed that there would be probably be at least one, if not two new government buildings built alongside Dumas House sometime over this decade — Mr P.B. Watson : Maybe summer palaces? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, they will be appropriate accommodation for the central agencies of government, which would be the Public Sector Commission, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and the Department of Treasury and Finance. As has also been detailed in the announcements that have been made, most government ministers will be located in Dumas House and there will also be public sector departments—the central agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you confirming there is a plan for the old Observatory? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am getting to the old Observatory. I am saying that there is a broad view about how that will ultimately develop. It means that government will move progressively out of high-cost rental accommodation in the central business district into government-owned buildings on government land in the parliamentary precinct. I think that is sensible; it will certainly save very large amounts of money for the government. There is something very appropriate about a government precinct next to Parliament, outside of the central business district area. The old Observatory building, which I am sure is heritage listed, is not the biggest building in the world—if anyone has been inside it. The suggestion that it could be a ballroom is a bit of a stretch; it would hold three dancers, and that would be it! My understanding of what the Leader of the Opposition is referring to is that in some of the discussions the National Trust had suggested that it would leave the site and that it be used as a central facility for government departments in the area. I think that is probably not a bad idea, but the government has no plan to redevelop that building. It is a heritage building that will stay as it is. As far as I am concerned, the National Trust can stay there in the immediate future. Ultimately, it might become a meeting room that is shared by government agencies—I do not know what it will used for—and the public should have access to it, because part of the development of the precinct is to have wide walkways connecting not only the parliamentary side but also West Perth to Kings Park. It will be a very attractive public landscaped area. The old Observatory sits right at the centre of it. It should be a facility that public servants and visitors to the area can use, whether it is a cafe or what—I do not know. The government has no plans to take over that building and do anything in particular with it. It will stay there with the National Trust, and it may become a broader public facility. There will be literally thousands of workers in that precinct, so why not have a cafe or whatever in the middle of it; it is a good idea. With respect to Hale House, the Leader of the Opposition’s number is probably right—about 40 teachers work from there in delivering therapy services and the like in schools. They have known for some time, certainly from when the announcement was made back in February, that they would be relocated to other Department of Education property and, although not as central as that location, probably in better accommodation. If any member is curious and wants to look at Hale House, they will see that it is not up to the standard of accommodation that any worker, let alone government workers, should have. In many parts, the building is dilapidated; it is crowded and not in good condition. I have discussed that with the staff members. The reaction of the few I spoke to was that would be great. One of my staff suggested to them that we would invite them back to have a look. Most of the staff were very excited that the building was going to be restored to heritage standard. There is a relocation, but they accept that and they will probably have a better working environment.
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(4) There are two issues: the first relates to the old Observatory building. The State Architect has looked at the broader parliamentary precinct, as he should. I have to say that he is enthusiastic about refurbishing Hale House, as are most heritage architects that I have heard from. Obviously, there is a broader concept; it is still a bit of a moving feast as to what might happen in that heritage precinct. When I foreshadowed that there would be probably be at least one, if not two new government buildings built alongside Dumas House sometime over this decade — Mr P.B. Watson : Maybe summer palaces? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, they will be appropriate accommodation for the central agencies of government, which would be the Public Sector Commission, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and the Department of Treasury and Finance. As has also been detailed in the announcements that have been made, most government ministers will be located in Dumas House and there will also be public sector departments—the central agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you confirming there is a plan for the old Observatory? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am getting to the old Observatory. I am saying that there is a broad view about how that will ultimately develop. It means that government will move progressively out of high-cost rental accommodation in the central business district into government-owned buildings on government land in the parliamentary precinct. I think that is sensible; it will certainly save very large amounts of money for the government. There is something very appropriate about a government precinct next to Parliament, outside of the central business district area. The old Observatory building, which I am sure is heritage listed, is not the biggest building in the world—if anyone has been inside it. The suggestion that it could be a ballroom is a bit of a stretch; it would hold three dancers, and that would be it! My understanding of what the Leader of the Opposition is referring to is that in some of the discussions the National Trust had suggested that it would leave the site and that it be used as a central facility for government departments in the area. I think that is probably not a bad idea, but the government has no plan to redevelop that building. It is a heritage building that will stay as it is. As far as I am concerned, the National Trust can stay there in the immediate future. Ultimately, it might become a meeting room that is shared by government agencies—I do not know what it will used for—and the public should have access to it, because part of the development of the precinct is to have wide walkways connecting not only the parliamentary side but also West Perth to Kings Park. It will be a very attractive public landscaped area. The old Observatory sits right at the centre of it. It should be a facility that public servants and visitors to the area can use, whether it is a cafe or what—I do not know. The government has no plans to take over that building and do anything in particular with it. It will stay there with the National Trust, and it may become a broader public facility. There will be literally thousands of workers in that precinct, so why not have a cafe or whatever in the middle of it; it is a good idea. With respect to Hale House, the Leader of the Opposition’s number is probably right—about 40 teachers work from there in delivering therapy services and the like in schools. They have known for some time, certainly from when the announcement was made back in February, that they would be relocated to other Department of Education property and, although not as central as that location, probably in better accommodation. If any member is curious and wants to look at Hale House, they will see that it is not up to the standard of accommodation that any worker, let alone government workers, should have. In many parts, the building is dilapidated; it is crowded and not in good condition. I have discussed that with the staff members. The reaction of the few I spoke to was that would be great. One of my staff suggested to them that we would invite them back to have a look. Most of the staff were very excited that the building was going to be restored to heritage standard. There is a relocation, but they accept that and they will probably have a better working environment.
(1)–(4) There are two issues: the first relates to the old Observatory building. The State Architect has looked at the broader parliamentary precinct, as he should. I have to say that he is enthusiastic about refurbishing Hale House, as are most heritage architects that I have heard from. Obviously, there is a broader concept; it is still a bit of a moving feast as to what might happen in that heritage precinct. When I foreshadowed that there would be probably be at least one, if not two new government buildings built alongside Dumas House sometime over this decade — Mr P.B. Watson : Maybe summer palaces? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, they will be appropriate accommodation for the central agencies of government, which would be the Public Sector Commission, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and the Department of Treasury and Finance. As has also been detailed in the announcements that have been made, most government ministers will be located in Dumas House and there will also be public sector departments—the central agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you confirming there is a plan for the old Observatory? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am getting to the old Observatory. I am saying that there is a broad view about how that will ultimately develop. It means that government will move progressively out of high-cost rental accommodation in the central business district into government-owned buildings on government land in the parliamentary precinct. I think that is sensible; it will certainly save very large amounts of money for the government. There is something very appropriate about a government precinct next to Parliament, outside of the central business district area. The old Observatory building, which I am sure is heritage listed, is not the biggest building in the world—if anyone has been inside it. The suggestion that it could be a ballroom is a bit of a stretch; it would hold three dancers, and that would be it! My understanding of what the Leader of the Opposition is referring to is that in some of the discussions the National Trust had suggested that it would leave the site and that it be used as a central facility for government departments in the area. I think that is probably not a bad idea, but the government has no plan to redevelop that building. It is a heritage building that will stay as it is. As far as I am concerned, the National Trust can stay there in the immediate future. Ultimately, it might become a meeting room that is shared by government agencies—I do not know what it will used for—and the public should have access to it, because part of the development of the precinct is to have wide walkways connecting not only the parliamentary side but also West Perth to Kings Park. It will be a very attractive public landscaped area. The old Observatory sits right at the centre of it. It should be a facility that public servants and visitors to the area can use, whether it is a cafe or what—I do not know. The government has no plans to take over that building and do anything in particular with it. It will stay there with the National Trust, and it may become a broader public facility. There will be literally thousands of workers in that precinct, so why not have a cafe or whatever in the middle of it; it is a good idea. With respect to Hale House, the Leader of the Opposition’s number is probably right—about 40 teachers work from there in delivering therapy services and the like in schools. They have known for some time, certainly from when the announcement was made back in February, that they would be relocated to other Department of Education property and, although not as central as that location, probably in better accommodation. If any member is curious and wants to look at Hale House, they will see that it is not up to the standard of accommodation that any worker, let alone government workers, should have. In many parts, the building is dilapidated; it is crowded and not in good condition. I have discussed that with the staff members. The reaction of the few I spoke to was that would be great. One of my staff suggested to them that we would invite them back to have a look. Most of the staff were very excited that the building was going to be restored to heritage standard. There is a relocation, but they accept that and they will probably have a better working environment.
Mr P.B. Watson : Maybe summer palaces? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, they will be appropriate accommodation for the central agencies of government, which would be the Public Sector Commission, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and the Department of Treasury and Finance. As has also been detailed in the announcements that have been made, most government ministers will be located in Dumas House and there will also be public sector departments—the central agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you confirming there is a plan for the old Observatory? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am getting to the old Observatory. I am saying that there is a broad view about how that will ultimately develop. It means that government will move progressively out of high-cost rental accommodation in the central business district into government-owned buildings on government land in the parliamentary precinct. I think that is sensible; it will certainly save very large amounts of money for the government. There is something very appropriate about a government precinct next to Parliament, outside of the central business district area. The old Observatory building, which I am sure is heritage listed, is not the biggest building in the world—if anyone has been inside it. The suggestion that it could be a ballroom is a bit of a stretch; it would hold three dancers, and that would be it! My understanding of what the Leader of the Opposition is referring to is that in some of the discussions the National Trust had suggested that it would leave the site and that it be used as a central facility for government departments in the area. I think that is probably not a bad idea, but the government has no plan to redevelop that building. It is a heritage building that will stay as it is. As far as I am concerned, the National Trust can stay there in the immediate future. Ultimately, it might become a meeting room that is shared by government agencies—I do not know what it will used for—and the public should have access to it, because part of the development of the precinct is to have wide walkways connecting not only the parliamentary side but also West Perth to Kings Park. It will be a very attractive public landscaped area. The old Observatory sits right at the centre of it. It should be a facility that public servants and visitors to the area can use, whether it is a cafe or what—I do not know. The government has no plans to take over that building and do anything in particular with it. It will stay there with the National Trust, and it may become a broader public facility. There will be literally thousands of workers in that precinct, so why not have a cafe or whatever in the middle of it; it is a good idea. With respect to Hale House, the Leader of the Opposition’s number is probably right—about 40 teachers work from there in delivering therapy services and the like in schools. They have known for some time, certainly from when the announcement was made back in February, that they would be relocated to other Department of Education property and, although not as central as that location, probably in better accommodation. If any member is curious and wants to look at Hale House, they will see that it is not up to the standard of accommodation that any worker, let alone government workers, should have. In many parts, the building is dilapidated; it is crowded and not in good condition. I have discussed that with the staff members. The reaction of the few I spoke to was that would be great. One of my staff suggested to them that we would invite them back to have a look. Most of the staff were very excited that the building was going to be restored to heritage standard. There is a relocation, but they accept that and they will probably have a better working environment.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, they will be appropriate accommodation for the central agencies of government, which would be the Public Sector Commission, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and the Department of Treasury and Finance. As has also been detailed in the announcements that have been made, most government ministers will be located in Dumas House and there will also be public sector departments—the central agencies. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you confirming there is a plan for the old Observatory? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am getting to the old Observatory. I am saying that there is a broad view about how that will ultimately develop. It means that government will move progressively out of high-cost rental accommodation in the central business district into government-owned buildings on government land in the parliamentary precinct. I think that is sensible; it will certainly save very large amounts of money for the government. There is something very appropriate about a government precinct next to Parliament, outside of the central business district area. The old Observatory building, which I am sure is heritage listed, is not the biggest building in the world—if anyone has been inside it. The suggestion that it could be a ballroom is a bit of a stretch; it would hold three dancers, and that would be it! My understanding of what the Leader of the Opposition is referring to is that in some of the discussions the National Trust had suggested that it would leave the site and that it be used as a central facility for government departments in the area. I think that is probably not a bad idea, but the government has no plan to redevelop that building. It is a heritage building that will stay as it is. As far as I am concerned, the National Trust can stay there in the immediate future. Ultimately, it might become a meeting room that is shared by government agencies—I do not know what it will used for—and the public should have access to it, because part of the development of the precinct is to have wide walkways connecting not only the parliamentary side but also West Perth to Kings Park. It will be a very attractive public landscaped area. The old Observatory sits right at the centre of it. It should be a facility that public servants and visitors to the area can use, whether it is a cafe or what—I do not know. The government has no plans to take over that building and do anything in particular with it. It will stay there with the National Trust, and it may become a broader public facility. There will be literally thousands of workers in that precinct, so why not have a cafe or whatever in the middle of it; it is a good idea. With respect to Hale House, the Leader of the Opposition’s number is probably right—about 40 teachers work from there in delivering therapy services and the like in schools. They have known for some time, certainly from when the announcement was made back in February, that they would be relocated to other Department of Education property and, although not as central as that location, probably in better accommodation. If any member is curious and wants to look at Hale House, they will see that it is not up to the standard of accommodation that any worker, let alone government workers, should have. In many parts, the building is dilapidated; it is crowded and not in good condition. I have discussed that with the staff members. The reaction of the few I spoke to was that would be great. One of my staff suggested to them that we would invite them back to have a look. Most of the staff were very excited that the building was going to be restored to heritage standard. There is a relocation, but they accept that and they will probably have a better working environment.
Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you confirming there is a plan for the old Observatory? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am getting to the old Observatory. I am saying that there is a broad view about how that will ultimately develop. It means that government will move progressively out of high-cost rental accommodation in the central business district into government-owned buildings on government land in the parliamentary precinct. I think that is sensible; it will certainly save very large amounts of money for the government. There is something very appropriate about a government precinct next to Parliament, outside of the central business district area. The old Observatory building, which I am sure is heritage listed, is not the biggest building in the world—if anyone has been inside it. The suggestion that it could be a ballroom is a bit of a stretch; it would hold three dancers, and that would be it! My understanding of what the Leader of the Opposition is referring to is that in some of the discussions the National Trust had suggested that it would leave the site and that it be used as a central facility for government departments in the area. I think that is probably not a bad idea, but the government has no plan to redevelop that building. It is a heritage building that will stay as it is. As far as I am concerned, the National Trust can stay there in the immediate future. Ultimately, it might become a meeting room that is shared by government agencies—I do not know what it will used for—and the public should have access to it, because part of the development of the precinct is to have wide walkways connecting not only the parliamentary side but also West Perth to Kings Park. It will be a very attractive public landscaped area. The old Observatory sits right at the centre of it. It should be a facility that public servants and visitors to the area can use, whether it is a cafe or what—I do not know. The government has no plans to take over that building and do anything in particular with it. It will stay there with the National Trust, and it may become a broader public facility. There will be literally thousands of workers in that precinct, so why not have a cafe or whatever in the middle of it; it is a good idea. With respect to Hale House, the Leader of the Opposition’s number is probably right—about 40 teachers work from there in delivering therapy services and the like in schools. They have known for some time, certainly from when the announcement was made back in February, that they would be relocated to other Department of Education property and, although not as central as that location, probably in better accommodation. If any member is curious and wants to look at Hale House, they will see that it is not up to the standard of accommodation that any worker, let alone government workers, should have. In many parts, the building is dilapidated; it is crowded and not in good condition. I have discussed that with the staff members. The reaction of the few I spoke to was that would be great. One of my staff suggested to them that we would invite them back to have a look. Most of the staff were very excited that the building was going to be restored to heritage standard. There is a relocation, but they accept that and they will probably have a better working environment.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am getting to the old Observatory. I am saying that there is a broad view about how that will ultimately develop. It means that government will move progressively out of high-cost rental accommodation in the central business district into government-owned buildings on government land in the parliamentary precinct. I think that is sensible; it will certainly save very large amounts of money for the government. There is something very appropriate about a government precinct next to Parliament, outside of the central business district area. The old Observatory building, which I am sure is heritage listed, is not the biggest building in the world—if anyone has been inside it. The suggestion that it could be a ballroom is a bit of a stretch; it would hold three dancers, and that would be it! My understanding of what the Leader of the Opposition is referring to is that in some of the discussions the National Trust had suggested that it would leave the site and that it be used as a central facility for government departments in the area. I think that is probably not a bad idea, but the government has no plan to redevelop that building. It is a heritage building that will stay as it is. As far as I am concerned, the National Trust can stay there in the immediate future. Ultimately, it might become a meeting room that is shared by government agencies—I do not know what it will used for—and the public should have access to it, because part of the development of the precinct is to have wide walkways connecting not only the parliamentary side but also West Perth to Kings Park. It will be a very attractive public landscaped area. The old Observatory sits right at the centre of it. It should be a facility that public servants and visitors to the area can use, whether it is a cafe or what—I do not know. The government has no plans to take over that building and do anything in particular with it. It will stay there with the National Trust, and it may become a broader public facility. There will be literally thousands of workers in that precinct, so why not have a cafe or whatever in the middle of it; it is a good idea. With respect to Hale House, the Leader of the Opposition’s number is probably right—about 40 teachers work from there in delivering therapy services and the like in schools. They have known for some time, certainly from when the announcement was made back in February, that they would be relocated to other Department of Education property and, although not as central as that location, probably in better accommodation. If any member is curious and wants to look at Hale House, they will see that it is not up to the standard of accommodation that any worker, let alone government workers, should have. In many parts, the building is dilapidated; it is crowded and not in good condition. I have discussed that with the staff members. The reaction of the few I spoke to was that would be great. One of my staff suggested to them that we would invite them back to have a look. Most of the staff were very excited that the building was going to be restored to heritage standard. There is a relocation, but they accept that and they will probably have a better working environment.
The old Observatory building, which I am sure is heritage listed, is not the biggest building in the world—if anyone has been inside it. The suggestion that it could be a ballroom is a bit of a stretch; it would hold three dancers, and that would be it! My understanding of what the Leader of the Opposition is referring to is that in some of the discussions the National Trust had suggested that it would leave the site and that it be used as a central facility for government departments in the area. I think that is probably not a bad idea, but the government has no plan to redevelop that building. It is a heritage building that will stay as it is. As far as I am concerned, the National Trust can stay there in the immediate future. Ultimately, it might become a meeting room that is shared by government agencies—I do not know what it will used for—and the public should have access to it, because part of the development of the precinct is to have wide walkways connecting not only the parliamentary side but also West Perth to Kings Park. It will be a very attractive public landscaped area. The old Observatory sits right at the centre of it. It should be a facility that public servants and visitors to the area can use, whether it is a cafe or what—I do not know. The government has no plans to take over that building and do anything in particular with it. It will stay there with the National Trust, and it may become a broader public facility. There will be literally thousands of workers in that precinct, so why not have a cafe or whatever in the middle of it; it is a good idea. With respect to Hale House, the Leader of the Opposition’s number is probably right—about 40 teachers work from there in delivering therapy services and the like in schools. They have known for some time, certainly from when the announcement was made back in February, that they would be relocated to other Department of Education property and, although not as central as that location, probably in better accommodation. If any member is curious and wants to look at Hale House, they will see that it is not up to the standard of accommodation that any worker, let alone government workers, should have. In many parts, the building is dilapidated; it is crowded and not in good condition. I have discussed that with the staff members. The reaction of the few I spoke to was that would be great. One of my staff suggested to them that we would invite them back to have a look. Most of the staff were very excited that the building was going to be restored to heritage standard. There is a relocation, but they accept that and they will probably have a better working environment.
With respect to Hale House, the Leader of the Opposition’s number is probably right—about 40 teachers work from there in delivering therapy services and the like in schools. They have known for some time, certainly from when the announcement was made back in February, that they would be relocated to other Department of Education property and, although not as central as that location, probably in better accommodation. If any member is curious and wants to look at Hale House, they will see that it is not up to the standard of accommodation that any worker, let alone government workers, should have. In many parts, the building is dilapidated; it is crowded and not in good condition. I have discussed that with the staff members. The reaction of the few I spoke to was that would be great. One of my staff suggested to them that we would invite them back to have a look. Most of the staff were very excited that the building was going to be restored to heritage standard. There is a relocation, but they accept that and they will probably have a better working environment.
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.