Ms MARTIN - 1999-10-12
In 1995, the Heritage Advisory Council recommended that the Hotel Darwin be declared a heritage place. The then minister sought more information on the proposal. In 1997, 2 years later, a second nomination was referred to the minister and a report was commissioned into the financial implications of the nomination. Will the minister confirm that this report on the proposed nomination of the Hotel Darwin was due to be considered by the Heritage Advisory Council at their September 1999 meeting? That meeting was scheduled to be held less than a week after the demolition of the hotel was given the green light by this government. Will the minister explain to this House why he refused to place an interim conservation order on the Hotel Darwin when he knew that his own appointed body of experts was to meet and discuss the issue within days of that demolition?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I thank the leader of Labor for that question. To start with, in this whole process of the Hotel Darwin and the demolition that occurred, the fact that should be remembered is that the leader of Labor wasn’t anywhere to be seen, didn’t make a comment for 5 days following that process. When she did make a comment she called on the government to assess the situation by independent reports. In fact, she stated categorically that there were only 2 reports available to government to assess what was going on.
I think we should go back a bit. The Paspalis Property Group had for many, many years been working on the structural problems that were occurring at Hotel Darwin and had hired an engineering firm, TCM Meinhardt, to assess the concrete cancer that was in the building. They had been doing some supervised remedial works for a long time.
In 1996, the Heritage Advisory Council commissioned an engineering firm to provide it with a report on the extent of damage that was occurring to the Darwin Hotel.
The building owners this year decided that they would close part of the building for structural repairs and extensive refurbishment. But TCM Meinhardt, who had been carrying out the works over a number of years to see if they could remediate the damage that was going on, carried out a further assessment in July of this year. Their report, notwithstanding the extensive works that had been done - hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth, I might add - in trying to abate that deterioration of the concrete structure, said there was no doubt that the structural integrity of the building was failing.
The property owners at that time called for a second opinion. This is the third report. We have one from the Heritage Advisory Council, we have the TCM Meinhardt one that has been ongoing, and a second opinion that was obtained from a very reputable firm, internationally acclaimed, Sinclair Knight Merz, which included random core samplings taken from all parts of the structure. They were sent down to an independent interstate firm for analysis.
Sinclair Knight Merz reinforced the concerns in the earlier reports that the structural adequacy of the building was a very big problem and recommended immediate propping of the first-floor concrete slab in the worst-affected places which included, for those who know the Darwin Hotel, the Green Room. Those props were installed immediately by the property owners and the existing tenancy agreements that they had in place were terminated. That’s how serious and immediate the problem was.. In fact, on inspection by various people including engineers and media representatives, there was evidence of big pieces of concrete having fallen on the ceiling.
If people had been in proximity and the concrete had fallen through the ceiling, there could have been serious harm caused. It was incumbent on the property owners to let their building insurers know of the situation. The building insurers immediately withdrew any insurance underwriting that they had on that building, and any cover. The property owners then wrote to me and asked for a meeting. They fully briefed me on the situation.
It is worth also putting on the record, for Territorians who are listening, that the concrete used in the structure, built in the 1940s, consisted of a porcelain of gravel and beach sand. The blocks are very weak. They are friable, and they also absorb moisture. But most notably, beach sand contains chlorine from salt. That is what has been causing the inherent problem within the building. With contemporary materials there are measures that can be taken to stop any form of concrete cancer. But with materials of this nature, and given the work that had been done over many, many years, it was reported by the engineers in 2 separate reports that the deterioration had just gone too far and the cost would be too great.
After meeting with the building owners and representatives of both the engineering firms, I reviewed the Heritage Advisory Council’s report including their engineering report to my mind a third independent report, which is what the leader of Labor had been calling for. She misled the public as usual, saying on the ABC, I think it was ...
Ms Martin: Saying you should have gone back to the expert engineers.
Mr BALDWIN: Sinclair Knight Merz is not an expert engineer? When asked if things could have changed in the last 3 years or so since the Heritage Advisory Council’s report, Clare Martin said:
I’m not denying that things could have changed, but I’m saying that if you’re fair dinkum about looking after Darwin’s heritage, our old buildings, then get a second report. [Which we did. We have 3 reports.] You don’t have to get reports ad infinitum, time after time after time, but it would be nice to get an independent report.
Sinclair Knight Merz is a very reputable firm, as is TCM Meinhardt. The evidence that was produced was irrefutable: the building was beyond salvage. It was not an easy decision for the owners of the property. That family, particularly the daughters, had been involved with it over a very long period. It was a heart-rending decision for the property owners. But at the end of the day, placing an interim conservation order over that building would have been an absolutely inappropriate use of my ministerial powers for that reason. You can’t refute engineer reports - 2 of them, 1 as late as August this year that says there is no option other than complete demolition.
They had to vacate the building of any tenants. They had no insurance over the building. They had to prop all of the structure to keep it maintained until a decision was made. There was no alternative and in the end the building was demolished, albeit that it was a sad day for the Territory. George Brown said something like: ‘Old people like me finally have to lie down or go away’. That’s basically what’s happened to the Hotel Darwin and that’s the end of it.
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I thank the leader of Labor for that question. To start with, in this whole process of the Hotel Darwin and the demolition that occurred, the fact that should be remembered is that the leader of Labor wasn’t anywhere to be seen, didn’t make a comment for 5 days following that process. When she did make a comment she called on the government to assess the situation by independent reports. In fact, she stated categorically that there were only 2 reports available to government to assess what was going on.
I think we should go back a bit. The Paspalis Property Group had for many, many years been working on the structural problems that were occurring at Hotel Darwin and had hired an engineering firm, TCM Meinhardt, to assess the concrete cancer that was in the building. They had been doing some supervised remedial works for a long time.
In 1996, the Heritage Advisory Council commissioned an engineering firm to provide it with a report on the extent of damage that was occurring to the Darwin Hotel.
The building owners this year decided that they would close part of the building for structural repairs and extensive refurbishment. But TCM Meinhardt, who had been carrying out the works over a number of years to see if they could remediate the damage that was going on, carried out a further assessment in July of this year. Their report, notwithstanding the extensive works that had been done - hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth, I might add - in trying to abate that deterioration of the concrete structure, said there was no doubt that the structural integrity of the building was failing.
The property owners at that time called for a second opinion. This is the third report. We have one from the Heritage Advisory Council, we have the TCM Meinhardt one that has been ongoing, and a second opinion that was obtained from a very reputable firm, internationally acclaimed, Sinclair Knight Merz, which included random core samplings taken from all parts of the structure. They were sent down to an independent interstate firm for analysis.
Sinclair Knight Merz reinforced the concerns in the earlier reports that the structural adequacy of the building was a very big problem and recommended immediate propping of the first-floor concrete slab in the worst-affected places which included, for those who know the Darwin Hotel, the Green Room. Those props were installed immediately by the property owners and the existing tenancy agreements that they had in place were terminated. That’s how serious and immediate the problem was.. In fact, on inspection by various people including engineers and media representatives, there was evidence of big pieces of concrete having fallen on the ceiling.
If people had been in proximity and the concrete had fallen through the ceiling, there could have been serious harm caused. It was incumbent on the property owners to let their building insurers know of the situation. The building insurers immediately withdrew any insurance underwriting that they had on that building, and any cover. The property owners then wrote to me and asked for a meeting. They fully briefed me on the situation.
It is worth also putting on the record, for Territorians who are listening, that the concrete used in the structure, built in the 1940s, consisted of a porcelain of gravel and beach sand. The blocks are very weak. They are friable, and they also absorb moisture. But most notably, beach sand contains chlorine from salt. That is what has been causing the inherent problem within the building. With contemporary materials there are measures that can be taken to stop any form of concrete cancer. But with materials of this nature, and given the work that had been done over many, many years, it was reported by the engineers in 2 separate reports that the deterioration had just gone too far and the cost would be too great.
After meeting with the building owners and representatives of both the engineering firms, I reviewed the Heritage Advisory Council’s report including their engineering report to my mind a third independent report, which is what the leader of Labor had been calling for. She misled the public as usual, saying on the ABC, I think it was ...
Ms Martin: Saying you should have gone back to the expert engineers.
Mr BALDWIN: Sinclair Knight Merz is not an expert engineer? When asked if things could have changed in the last 3 years or so since the Heritage Advisory Council’s report, Clare Martin said:
I’m not denying that things could have changed, but I’m saying that if you’re fair dinkum about looking after Darwin’s heritage, our old buildings, then get a second report. [Which we did. We have 3 reports.] You don’t have to get reports ad infinitum, time after time after time, but it would be nice to get an independent report.
Sinclair Knight Merz is a very reputable firm, as is TCM Meinhardt. The evidence that was produced was irrefutable: the building was beyond salvage. It was not an easy decision for the owners of the property. That family, particularly the daughters, had been involved with it over a very long period. It was a heart-rending decision for the property owners. But at the end of the day, placing an interim conservation order over that building would have been an absolutely inappropriate use of my ministerial powers for that reason. You can’t refute engineer reports - 2 of them, 1 as late as August this year that says there is no option other than complete demolition.
They had to vacate the building of any tenants. They had no insurance over the building. They had to prop all of the structure to keep it maintained until a decision was made. There was no alternative and in the end the building was demolished, albeit that it was a sad day for the Territory. George Brown said something like: ‘Old people like me finally have to lie down or go away’. That’s basically what’s happened to the Hotel Darwin and that’s the end of it.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016