Mr TOYNE - 1999-10-12
Arup Faade Engineering are international specialist engineers on concrete structures. In 1996, Arup provided the minister’s department with a report that conflicted dramatically with the owners’ own reports on the problems facing the Hotel Darwin. Will the minister explain why he refused to obtain an independent assessment, or go back to Arup for a further assessment, before allowing the building to be demolished?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, obviously the member for Stuart needs his ears washed out or something. I thought I just explained that there were 3 reports. Why would I go and get an independent report when there was already one?
Yes, the Heritage Advisory Council did provide an engineer’s report that said that it would cost in the order of $20 000 to repair the damage to the concrete, in direct conflict with the TCM Meinhardt engineer’s report. As late as this year, TCM Meinhardt reported - this is following on from many, many years of remedial works with hundreds of thousands of dollars already spent – that it would cost in excess of $0.5m to carry out any further works.
Ms Martin: Arup said $20 000.
Mr BALDWIN: That’s the point! They’re not listening to me. They’re asleep over the other side. The point is that one report said $20 000 for repairs and $5000 ongoing. The other report said in excess of $0.5m and ongoing. And a third report - No 3, that’s a third report, for the member for Stuart’s benefit - independent, was made by a company called Sinclair Knight Merz, a very reputable company that is internationally acclaimed and has won all sorts of awards. They didn’t just waltz in there and have a look around, they took core samples. Do you know what core samples are? That is when they drill into the structure, take a piece of the concrete, send it away to somebody else, independent, and get the samples analysed. From that evidence they make a considered decision about the structural integrity of the building. The third report concurred with the report of TCM Meinhardt, coming to the conclusion that it was uneconomical, not feasible, to maintain that structure.
Ms Martin: I’ve had a few calls from experts in concreting and they say ...
Mr BALDWIN: How many experts do we have to have? In the leader of Labor’s own words during an interview, she said: ‘You don’t have to keep going on ad infinitum and getting report after report’. How many do you want? There were 3 reports. The evidence stands on its own. All of that evidence was considered by the government and the conclusion was made not to use an interim conservation order because it would not have been effective. It would have been at great loss to the property owners. What rights do the owners have in these cases? Surely they have some rights. Or do they just have to fork out millions of dollars ...
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The minister will resume his seat for a moment, please. There is far too much comment from the opposition benches. I ask you to hear the minister in silence, if he has anything further to say.
Mr BALDWIN: I think I’ve made my point. They are totally asleep over the other side. They waltz in at the last minute. It was 5 days before the leader of Labor made any sort of a comment. It is extremely unfortunate that there was no other feasible option in this case, but the facts speak for themselves.
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, obviously the member for Stuart needs his ears washed out or something. I thought I just explained that there were 3 reports. Why would I go and get an independent report when there was already one?
Yes, the Heritage Advisory Council did provide an engineer’s report that said that it would cost in the order of $20 000 to repair the damage to the concrete, in direct conflict with the TCM Meinhardt engineer’s report. As late as this year, TCM Meinhardt reported - this is following on from many, many years of remedial works with hundreds of thousands of dollars already spent – that it would cost in excess of $0.5m to carry out any further works.
Ms Martin: Arup said $20 000.
Mr BALDWIN: That’s the point! They’re not listening to me. They’re asleep over the other side. The point is that one report said $20 000 for repairs and $5000 ongoing. The other report said in excess of $0.5m and ongoing. And a third report - No 3, that’s a third report, for the member for Stuart’s benefit - independent, was made by a company called Sinclair Knight Merz, a very reputable company that is internationally acclaimed and has won all sorts of awards. They didn’t just waltz in there and have a look around, they took core samples. Do you know what core samples are? That is when they drill into the structure, take a piece of the concrete, send it away to somebody else, independent, and get the samples analysed. From that evidence they make a considered decision about the structural integrity of the building. The third report concurred with the report of TCM Meinhardt, coming to the conclusion that it was uneconomical, not feasible, to maintain that structure.
Ms Martin: I’ve had a few calls from experts in concreting and they say ...
Mr BALDWIN: How many experts do we have to have? In the leader of Labor’s own words during an interview, she said: ‘You don’t have to keep going on ad infinitum and getting report after report’. How many do you want? There were 3 reports. The evidence stands on its own. All of that evidence was considered by the government and the conclusion was made not to use an interim conservation order because it would not have been effective. It would have been at great loss to the property owners. What rights do the owners have in these cases? Surely they have some rights. Or do they just have to fork out millions of dollars ...
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The minister will resume his seat for a moment, please. There is far too much comment from the opposition benches. I ask you to hear the minister in silence, if he has anything further to say.
Mr BALDWIN: I think I’ve made my point. They are totally asleep over the other side. They waltz in at the last minute. It was 5 days before the leader of Labor made any sort of a comment. It is extremely unfortunate that there was no other feasible option in this case, but the facts speak for themselves.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016