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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 4 Hansard (7 May) . . Page.. 1092 ..

MS McRAE (continuing):

The other matter of concern that again has some appeal is that every effort to sort and recycle demolition material from the Acton Peninsula buildings, particularly through the use of the Pialligo demolition waste recycling facility, seems to us to favour one company over another. Because of its emotional appeal, of course, who would not support a motion that asks the Government to make every effort to ensure that the best possible recycling takes place? We have before us a motion that has underlying it some sentiments that, on the face of it, we may well want to support; but I do not think we should ignore the implications of that possible support and let that escape because of the type of motion that is put before the Assembly.

At another time it may well be that an issue of far more intense concern to us may come up. If we feel that we can get the numbers and stop something halfway through, are we then, by implication, by allowing this motion to even be debated, setting up the notion that, should the Assembly get the numbers, we can stop something that the Government has done, incur an expense and, therefore, be outside the normal rules that guide the management of money matters in this Assembly? Mr Speaker, I will leave that in your capable hands. The Labor Party is not supporting this motion, so we do not have an immediate problem. I do commend to you a serious consideration of the issues that I have raised and ask that you bring back the results of your consideration.

MR STEFANIAK (Minister for Education and Training and Minister for Sport and Recreation) (5.14): I wish to make just a few points. I note what Ms McRae said. One point - and I think Ms McRae and Mr Humphries may have alluded to this; but, if they have not, I do so now - is this: Not only would breaking a contract be very costly to the Government; it would also be an illegal act. I think that is a very significant factor in terms of the substantive motion.

The Fairbairn Park issue is an issue that has been around for quite some time. In terms of the actual cost, I think this is a very cost-effective and sensible way of rectifying a number of longstanding issues. It is very cost effective because, from my understanding, it is the cheapest means of moving suitable rubble, after proper recycling of useful materials, as the Chief Minister said yesterday, to Fairbairn Park so that barrier constructions and mounds can be made there.

Mr Speaker, I think the Greens suggested, in a Canberra Times article on 15 April, that the development there would be a monstrous eyesore. In actual fact, we would expect that a landscaped barrier system would be a vast visual improvement on what is currently visible from roads going past the facility and from the Ridgeway in New South Wales. Obviously, during the barrier construction there might be some visual disturbance, but this is normal for any project. It is also proposed, as the Chief Minister mentioned yesterday, that soil removed from the Bruce Stadium development will be used to cover the mounds to provide a base for landscaping and spectator amenity. It is strongly suggested that the end result will be much more visually attractive and much more effective than the current situation. There will be a preliminary assessment. All the other statutory processes will need to be followed in the construction of the barriers. The barriers will be professionally designed, and construction will be supervised by an appropriately qualified and experienced engineer.

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