Page 713 - Week 03 - Thursday, 22 March 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
from $35,000 to $40,000. In his speech the Minister said that this increase recognised the fact that the private removalists did not face the same large-scale project risk factors for equipment and project manager's overheads. However, this is only a reason for the limit to be lower than the contract price. It is not a reason to increase the limit by $5,000. Given that the $35,000 limit was agreed to only a few months ago, I would like an explanation from the Minister as to why it has been necessary to increase the limit by nearly 15 per cent overnight - taxpayers' money. I have not heard of any shortage of private removalists which could possibly justify such an increase.
Finally, I am pleased to see that the asbestos removal program is continuing on the track that I set and I hope that this traumatic period for many households in Canberra will soon be over.
MRS NOLAN (11.43): Mr Speaker, the statement made to the Assembly on 20 February by the Minister for Finance and Urban Services effectively removes a major barrier holding up progress with the asbestos removal program.
In that statement, it was demonstrated that this Government had a commitment to remedying this major health problem within four years. That statement also made it clear that this Government was not prepared to allow the welfare and peace of mind of 1,060 Canberra families to be used as a political football.
The existence of asbestos insulation in so many Canberra homes represents a substantial public health problem and while it is not a problem of our making it is nevertheless one we have had to address urgently. I might just make a comment here if I may, that while Mr Humphries left his glasses at home the other day I have something here that I can hardly read, so my apologies.
Mr Humphries: Do you want to borrow my glasses?
MRS NOLAN: I think I should. We did this beginning in December when it was announced that the Alliance Government was committed - - -
Mr Collaery: On a point of order, Mr Speaker; I rise as the leader of business in the house. Mr Berry is reading a newspaper in the chamber. That is his interest in this topic. It has always been the practice of other houses of parliament not to permit the bringing in of newspapers and I believe that this is blatant and it should not be taking place. There are hardly any Opposition members in the chamber, anyway, Mr Speaker. Three of them are here. I draw your attention to page 192 - - -
MR SPEAKER: Order, Mr Collaery. I thank you for your observation. I have ruled on this at a previous time. It is quite improper for members to read newspapers during debate. I respect your point of view, Mr Collaery. Mr Berry, I would request that you do not continue.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .