Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (28 June) . . Page.. 2152 ..
MR STEFANIAK
: They are not, Mr Berry. Listen and you might learn something. Mr Berry, the decision at the start of the year was to have two staff and an additional staff member for 100 days. The 100 days are up, but we have decided to maintain that additional member there for the rest of the year, Mr Berry.MR BERRY
: I have a supplementary question. Will the minister deny that there was a decision to take away those staff?MR STEFANIAK
: Mr Berry, can't you listen?MR SPEAKER
: I am sorry, I am not going to allow that.MR STEFANIAK
: I think I have answered the question, Mr Speaker-twice, actually.Mr Berry
: Why will you not allow that, Mr Speaker?MR SPEAKER
: If he wants to answer it, I suppose he can.Mr Berry
: Will the minister deny that the decision was made to take away the staff?MR SPEAKER
: The position is continuing.Ms Carnell
: I ask that all further questions be placed on the notice paper.MS CARNELL: Mr Rugendyke asked me a question yesterday with regard to the sound system at the GMC 400 race. I am advised that the public address system was tested and was working to specification prior to the race. During the race, it kept bleeding into the race control intercom system and race control requested that the public address system be turned down or off as it was hindering the safety of the drivers.
It is important to point out that there are two separate communication systems at races like that. One is the public address system and the other is the race control system. I am advised by CTEC that a thorough investigation of the circumstances which caused this interference has commenced. The contract provides for levels of service to be provided by the contractor. If it is shown that these levels have not been met, CTEC has the right to withhold money and/or to sue for damages. CTEC informed me that a decision regarding payment will not be made until reports concerning the public address system have been received from our engineers and a full evaluation of the circumstances is made.
Mr Rugendyke asked a supplementary question with regard to the tender. Mr Rugendyke asserted that the tender documents asked for the system to cover eight kilometres and that finally only a quarter of that distance was covered. I am advised that that is incorrect. The tender documents requested tenderers to design a public address system in
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .