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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 4 Hansard (7 May) . . Page.. 1096 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

All tenderers are attempting to recycle building materials whenever possible. Any - I repeat "any" - useful building components have been, or are being, recycled or resold and will be separated out from the rubble that will be dumped. This includes material such as doors, roof tiles, roof sheeting, window frames, windows, copper pipes, reinforcing rods - the list goes on, Mr Speaker. All companies involved are taking these metals and other materials out of what is being demolished and are separating them out for recycling. Of course, not everything can be recycled, such as things like old plasterboard. In the case of rubble from the tower block, we are, effectively, recycling and reusing the materials for a useful purpose by creating sound barriers at Fairbairn Park.

Ms Horodny's motion clearly indicates that she wants all contracts which have been let to be broken, and she is quite clear about that. She is quite happy for us to spend extra money paying out contractors and having to release them, which, of course, would incur an enormous cost to the Territory; and, instead, to be awarding these contracts to a company - the company Ms Horodny is interested in - which operates, I understand, at Pialligo. Let me state for the record that neither I nor any other member of this Government would be prepared to intervene in a tender process. I would have to say that, if we did, we would probably be carted off to the watch-house because we would be acting very improperly and potentially against the law.

I can only state for the record that the ACT Government has not had any formal complaints, protests or even queries lodged by this firm at Pialligo which has, itself, been awarded one of the six contracts. I would also be concerned to think that maybe Ms Horodny would be interested in seeing the Government intervene in tender contracts when an open tender has been conducted, when a best value for the dollar arrangement has been sorted out. Certainly, the way the motion reads, Mr Speaker, I find it very difficult to understand why you would have a tender process and, if the Government did not like the outcome or there was some reason why the Assembly did not like the outcome, we then overturned it and went to somebody else. Obviously, this would totally undermine any sensible way to operate business in the ACT.

Mr Speaker, enormous amounts of material are being recycled or reused. The method of implosion demolition for two of the buildings and manual demolition of the others was chosen after a careful analysis of the value for money of these methods offered and, of course, minimum disruption on the site, particularly to the residents and staff of the hospice. We did not ask for implosion as a sole method of demolition; nor, indeed, is this the case, I have to say, but value for money offered by implosion. As I said, the reduction in disruption which it produces was certainly an issue that I understand the tender selection committee looked at. It certainly would appear that Ms Horodny seems to be thinking, "Break the contracts" - probably break the law, which, I suspect, is what we would be doing - "and award them to another company", a company that did not actually get this tender at the end of the day. I find that a very unusual approach and certainly not the way that we would be operating government.

For the benefit of the Assembly, I would like to say that the tortoises have been moved out of Sylvia Curley House, and they have been moved out in a very caring and sensitive way.

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