Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 4 Hansard (7 May) . . Page.. 1089 ..

Ms Horodny: There will be value in the doors; they will be repainted; they will be replaced.

MR HUMPHRIES: If you take the door off its hinges and put it up somewhere else, you are reusing the door. That is better than having to cut the door up and use it for something else like matches or pens or something of that kind. Reusing is the best use, and that is what we have done with this project. We are reusing everything which is reasonably cost effective and is able to be reused. Even the rubble itself - the mass of the walls, the masonry and so on, that comes from the hospital - is being reused in mounds; that will go to create noise abatement mounds at Fairbairn Park.

All those sorts of things are reusing, and that is better than recycling. At least, that is what I understood from the concept of reducing, reusing and recycling. Mr Speaker, we made clear to the tenderers, when we called for those tenders, that they should make a great deal of the concept of reusing and recycling. As a result, the contractors are both recycling and reusing most of the material from the former hospital buildings. Bear that in mind: Most of the material coming out of the hospital is being reused or recycled.

I know Ms Horodny is, I think it is fair to say, not keen on motor sport, but the fact is that many Canberrans are. The proposal to construct sound barriers at Fairbairn will limit the impact that this sport has on surrounding residents. I am not sure whether Ms Horodny is saying that she does not want that to happen and does not want the noise abatement measures to go forward; but I would hope that, even if we continue with motor sport at Fairbairn Park, there would be some abatement of the noise. Ms Horodny, I think, needs to understand that that is an important commitment that needs to be made.

What if the Government were to adopt Ms Horodny's preferred tenderer? What is the difference between her proposal and the Government's plans? As I have said, we have already recycled all the metals and we are salvaging all equipment or fittings that can be salvaged. This pretty much leaves only bricks and concrete. I have just pointed out that the Government has agreed to the reuse of the bricks and the concrete for sound barriers and tiered seating at Fairbairn Park.

Alternatively, we could have agreed to use it for low-grade road use, for a road base. The only difference in practical terms is that Ms Horodny's proposal would mean that the bricks and concrete would be separated. Would they be recycled into a new hospital? No. If the concrete is separated it will be crushed, so that it can be used for high-grade road base. The bricks would also be recycled, but it is unlikely that they would be used as bricks in buildings. The Horodny preferred tenderer was, in fact, much more likely to crush them and use them as low-grade fill. What do we get for the additional expense? Essentially, instead of low-grade fill we get some high-grade fill, with the possibility of some clean bricks but with a greater chance of a mix of low- and high-grade fill. Is this worth the disruption? Is it worth the cost? Mr Speaker, I do not believe that it is.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .