Bourke Court House Furore

Anne Susskind's article in the Law Society Journal (August 2009, p. 23) on the refurbishment of Bourke's court house records the dismay and outrage of various legal practitioners. She records the scathing comments of barrister John Cranston Thompson concerning alterations to the public gallery:

"The aesthetics of it ... the way they chose to do it, is quite ugly."

While local solicitor Doug McKay asserts there was "no logic whatsoever" to the refurbishment, and that it constitutes "a slap in the face for the local community." McKay described the alterations to the public gallery as resembling "two rudely constructed box-like rooms" and that the doors and fittings looked "like a toilet". Biting and caustic!

The Bourke Shire Council's general manager Geoff Wise was puzzled that the Council "had not been in any way associated with the development approval process for works on the 109-year-old heritage-listed court-house."

Susskind notes that the refurbishment was organised by the Attorney General's Department.

Quite right! The decision to maintain, refurbish or sell all land and building assets (such as court houses) rests in the hands of the "Asset Management Branch" which reports directly to the Director General Mr Glanfield. This is all part of the shared corporate services policy and practices instituted since 2003-04 in the NSW Attorney General's Department. Apparently the Asset Management Branch can do a better and more cost-effective job than could the staff who used to do this work in the various agencies and branches.

Unfortunately, legal practitioners do not have the time to read such dazzlingly dull publications like the 2007-08 Annual Report of the Attorney General's Department. The refurbishment of local court houses is part of a capital works project called Courts 2010:

"The infrastructure of the state's courthouses is being given a major upgrade. Court facilities are being brought up to modern design standards in the areas of security ... As part of the Courts 2010 project, court registries are undergoing a major facelift to promote a more modern, client focused service." (pp. 20 & 22).

The Annual Report of 2007-08 reports that Bourke court house was one among several to have the audio-visual link (AVL) technology installed so that prisoner's can make appearances without the necessity of being transported to court over bail applications and other matters. The Annual Report refers to upgrades in Inverell, Nowra, Dubbo, Goulburn, Armidale, Coffs Harbour, Newcastle and Wollongong.

The discontent in Bourke is understandable. Various sources imply that the Assets Management Branch conducts its work in a brusque manner. Sources claim that employees at a given location are the last to know -- there is no consultation just abrupt last minute notification that work is proceeding.

If one shifts from the local court houses, one can always inspect the e-tendering nsw site under the section dedicated to the NSW Attorney General's Department. There one can see examples of various and previous building tenders, along with tenders for consultants, printing of stationery and so on.

In the future we can probably expect to see the sale of other assets held by other agencies absorbed into the Attorney General's Department. One very likely target will be the former Public Trustee NSW's Beaux arts style building at 19 O'Connell Street. It was alluded to in the various points raised by Shadow Attorney General Mr Greg Smith's speech in opposing the merger on 17 June 2009.

A sale may be justified now on the basis that the new organisation, the NSW Trustee and Guardian, has its headquarters at the Parramatta Justice Precinct. So the CBD presence can be rationalised and reduced to a smaller customer service centre, while ostensibly redistributing employees to Parramatta or to new urban and regional branches.

Of course while the building may not fetch many millions in a sale, nonetheless a"fire sale" may be required since the new organisation's financial needs will require constant injections of funds. As Treasury has slashed its subsidising of what used to be the Office of the Protective Commissioner, it is no wonder that Barry Collier said in Parliament that in 2010 that IPART will be asked to explore "sources of funding".

This will follow the "logic" of the sale of the South Australian Public Trustee's building in 2007 (which then became a tenant in the building it used to own), and likewise the Public Trustee in London. It may well be the ambition of some senior bureaucrats who look longingly on relocating their offices to 19 O'Connell Street, and if a sale is organised then leases may be taken out in conjunction with a sale.

Keep your eyes peeled on the e-tendering site or wait for the "for sale" signs on different buildings controlled by the Attorney General's Department as the first notification that something is happening!