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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 4 Hansard (7 May) . . Page.. 1091 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Most of the materials are going to be reused and recycled. But Lucy Horodny wanted us to go further. We did not do that. She did not ask us to do it and that is why we did not do it. But we did not do that, so we are going to cancel the contract with this company; incur the damages that that would lead to as a result of a breach of contract; go to this other preferred tenderer of Ms Horodny's - - -

Mr Kaine: At a greater cost.

MR HUMPHRIES: - - - at a greater cost to the taxpayer; we are going to disrupt the inhabitants of the hospice for six weeks while jackhammers and pneumatic drills are being used outside the hospice, all because Ms Horodny forgot to mention to the Government that she would like these things to occur."? I have heard some pretty weak cases for action on the floor of the Assembly, Ms Horodny, but this one really and truly takes the cake. (Extension of time granted) The losers would be hospice patients, taxpayers, and Canberrans with an interest in motor sport; not to mention the employees of the existing contractor, most of whom are local residents. That is simply not a trade-off that the Government would be prepared to make. I urge other members of the Assembly not to entertain this trade-off either.

MS McRAE (5.10): Mr Speaker, it is a curious motion. There is a very serious concern here if Labor did choose to support this motion. Mr Speaker, I am going to ask you to provide the Assembly with some advice yet again. Should Labor choose to support it - and there are several measures within it that have some emotional appeal and some logic - we would then be supporting something that would incur a cost for the Territory. If Labor agreed to this motion and we perchance got the numbers, we would be voting for a motion where a contract would be broken, where compensation would be sought and where the Executive would have to incur a penalty. I believe that this is outside our standing orders and that we need advice on these sorts of motions. Should Labor have chosen to support this, that is exactly the position we would have put ourselves in; and I believe that is out of order. I would like you to provide us with some advice on that. As it happens, for a range of reasons, we are not able to support it today, even though we have a high level of support for the sentiments that are within it.

The Minister has explained that most of the issues that were raised have been dealt with. As it turns out, in the course of debate, we discovered that the Government has dealt with them. There is a difference of opinion as to whether or not it is good to take landfill to Fairbairn and whether those sound barriers will or will not be effective; but Mr Humphries has explained that they have done some work on it, and time will tell whether it is a suitable use of that rubble. Mrs Carnell yesterday outlined the type of recycling that is to happen. Mr Humphries today pointed out why this implosion is going ahead in the way it is and how the concerns and needs of the people who are working there and of patients in the hospice are being taken into account. However, there are still some pretty fundamental issues being raised about the management of this process which could easily have tempted people to jump on board and support it to ensure that the best possible use of this material was made and that the transfer was made properly.

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