Page 712 - Week 03 - Thursday, 22 March 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
program will be completed in the time frame that we set down in our Government. It is, of course, ironic that the Minister who made this statement, Mr Duby, is the same man who not less than six months ago was voting against the appropriation for asbestos removal in the 1989-90 Appropriation Bill. Another example, as I have said before, of the conversion of St Craig on the road to nowhere.
There are many things in the Minister's statement which I agree with. There are, however, a number of things that I think are an insult to the previous Government and to which I take exception. The Minister said the wheels fell off the asbestos removal program under the previous Government. This, of course, is not true. When the first tenders were received the prices were much higher than the Government had been led to expect them to be. It was prudent to ensure we obtained value for money before letting the contracts. It is true that in November 1989 only one contract for 100 houses was let to BRS Asbestos Removal Pty Limited. As I announced at the time, the Government put into place a thorough review of the tender specifications to see if the tender price could be lowered without lowering the safety standards to the householders and the workers involved. While I realise that this perceived delay could have caused some anguish to affected householders, it was important that the overall financial burden to the ACT taxpayer be borne in mind at all times. I also made it clear that I still expected the program to be completed within the original time frame.
In his statement Mr Duby says that in an effort to reduce the costs an examination of possible alternative and less expensive removal techniques has been undertaken. His department has been unable to identify any alternative techniques which do not involve a reduction in either the cleanliness standards, the worker safety standards or public health protection. This is, of course, the very process that I, as Minister, put into effect.
Mr Duby cannot have it both ways. He cannot say that the previous Government was tardy and yet, at the same time, claim credit for the reviews of the removal process which have been undertaken. I am pleased to say the removal technique adopted by the previous Government in its tender specification represents the cleanest and most effective means of extracting this most hazardous material. Of course, this is exactly what the review process that I put in train would have found and we would now be at exactly the same position as this Liberal coalition Government has reached. At this stage, we would have been letting new contracts and work on the program would still have been completed within four years.
The other matter I wish to raise is the lifting of the maximum limit for private removalists
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .