Page 716 - Week 03 - Thursday, 22 March 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
This limit recognises that although private removalists must meet the same standards as the government contractors, they do not have the large-scale development equipment and management overheads of the major contractors, nor do they face the same degree of risk as a firm contracted to clean a large number of houses over a long period.
There has been a recent report in the Canberra Times about an idea from a Mr Stewart for removing asbestos cheaply. The report suggests that program savings of 50 per cent would be possible. I would like, at this stage, to briefly deal with that.
As the Minister said in his February statement, countries around the world have found that there is no cheap and safe solution to removing asbestos from buildings. Short cuts have usually meant that the job has had to be done again and this Government has no intention of paying twice. The Minister said in his February statement that no alternative techniques have been identified which did not involve a reduction in either the cleanliness method, standard, workers' safety or public health protection - and, despite the Canberra Times story, that remains the case.
Most of the cheaper jobs done in the past have failed the cleanliness standard. We are currently looking at how to deal with these but I can assure members it will cost us money to fix them. As we understand it, the idea involves using air filled ribs to support a special outer weatherproof canopy instead of the aluminium frame currently required. While we remain ready to consider his idea carefully once he has documented it and his claims as he has agreed to do, we are not prepared to stop the program at this stage. I would point out that it currently takes around one and a half days to put up the outer canopy and its aluminium frame using five workers. The rest of the week needed to prepare a house for cleaning is taken up with sealing the house and furniture, erecting the inner airtight canopy, putting up scaffolding needed for adequate and safe worker access and getting negative air pressure established, all things which would need to be done whatever the outer canopy arrangement is. For this reason there are presently considerable doubts about the claim to save that 50 per cent of removal costs. Nevertheless, we remain ready to examine Mr Stewart's proposal once he has documented it. (Extension of time granted)
Should an alternative technique prove cost-effective, then it is open to the Government to negotiate a variation to its contracts. The point is that an idea does not necessarily translate into a viable course of action. Many ideas flounder in the research and development phase, however we do, of course, remain and wait to see what the outcome happens to be. It would be quite irresponsible to halt this major program at this point based on that idea.
The Alliance Government has been critical of the previous Government for its delay in making a decision. However,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .