Page 302 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 20 February 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
undertaken and partly because people do not always appreciate the precise nature of the problem we face.
I want to say something about these views. We are not talking about asbestos-bonded building materials such as fibro or lagging. We are talking about 100 per cent pure loose dangerous asbestos fluff, asbestos in its most dangerous form. As I mentioned earlier, as far as we are aware Canberra is the only place in the world where 100 per cent loose asbestos home insulation has been used on such a scale.
It is a fact that small companies are undertaking individual removal contracts for around $35,000 to $46,000. However, there is a world of difference between a one-house contract and a large contract over an extended period involving the full range of house sizes and types. Contractors undertaking large contracts face very significant risk factors as well as major equipment and project management costs which do not exist in single house contracts.
In addition, while firms currently undertaking individual private removals have to meet the same standards of cleanliness as the government contractors, they are free to employ methods and arrangements which would not be appropriate in a government contract. It seems that firms recognised these facts of life when they tendered last year. Most prices offered for single 100-house contracts ranged around $80,000 to $86,000 per house. While there may be some criticism from firms which have missed out, my response is that they had their chance when public tenders were called.
In an effort to reduce costs an examination of possible alternative, less expensive removal techniques has been undertaken. My department has been unable to identify any alternative techniques which did not involve a reduction in either the cleanliness standard, the worker safety standard or public health protection. In fact, it has been unable to identify any alternatives for which it is safe to proceed to trial stage.
Removal of this very hazardous material by half-measures just will not do. Quite apart from the potential legal and financial implications a future government might face if a penny-pinching or half-measures approach was adopted now, the Alliance Government is not prepared to risk the health of the citizens of Canberra.
I said earlier that we are critical of the previous Government for its delay in making a decision. However, it is fair to say that the removal technique adopted by the previous Government in its tender specification represents the safest, cleanest and most effective means of extracting this most hazardous of materials.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .