Ms CARNEY - 2005-03-23
Yesterday, your Minister for Planning and Infrastructure said in this House that your government has acted every time problems at the hospital have been brought to its attention, and that your government is committed to fixing up the hospital in an orderly fashion. Can you explain why it is that your government has been sitting on at least one report that we know of, dated April 2003, which lists massive building and safety defects at the hospital, and why you and your government failed to act on it for the better part of two years?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, while I welcome the question, it was answered by the minister earlier - very clearly and honestly, I thought. I can ask the minister to repeat what he said if the member for Araluen missed that. The minister involved clearly articulated how the problems emerged, what government has done in response, and that we are committed to spending the $10m to rectify those faults. As the minister clearly said, we are looking at our legal options.
I can ask the minister to repeat the answer if that has not satisfied the member for Araluen. Because she asked a question that the minister dealt with before, I should give him the opportunity to restate that.
Dr BURNS (Transport and Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, I will answer the question. To repeat what I said before - and it is a very important element of my answer - the type of contract involved in the refurbishment of Alice Springs Hospital was to design, build, commission and certify the building. In other words, under the contract set up by the previous government, the certifier actually worked for the principal consultant. It is a bit like parties to the purchase and sale of a house having the same lawyer. We know that, for protection, each party should have their own lawyer. Under the contract that the previous government had, there should have been a certifier to look after the government and taxpayer’s interest.
I can assure this House that redress of these issues, the repair of these defects, is being done under a completely different model whereby our certifier is involved. We are employing the certifier, and that is the principal difference.
In relation to the allegation the member for Araluen has made that government is sitting on reports, I say two things: government has not been sitting on its hands for a start. There has been a very active process to try to resolve the issues with the principal contractor regarding the original contract. Unfortunately, as I said before, it now looks as though legal action is pending. Senior executives of the principal contractors have been invited to Alice Springs Hospital to view these defects for themselves. One hopes that, when those senior executives of the principal contractor see the defects, they may come to the party about redress of the situation.
The member for Drysdale has written to me on the issue of reports and whatever. I have written back offering him a full briefing. I have also said that some of these issues are sensitive; some are pending legal actions. I am asking him to come along and be apprised of this information on a confidential basis.
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, while I welcome the question, it was answered by the minister earlier - very clearly and honestly, I thought. I can ask the minister to repeat what he said if the member for Araluen missed that. The minister involved clearly articulated how the problems emerged, what government has done in response, and that we are committed to spending the $10m to rectify those faults. As the minister clearly said, we are looking at our legal options.
I can ask the minister to repeat the answer if that has not satisfied the member for Araluen. Because she asked a question that the minister dealt with before, I should give him the opportunity to restate that.
Dr BURNS (Transport and Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, I will answer the question. To repeat what I said before - and it is a very important element of my answer - the type of contract involved in the refurbishment of Alice Springs Hospital was to design, build, commission and certify the building. In other words, under the contract set up by the previous government, the certifier actually worked for the principal consultant. It is a bit like parties to the purchase and sale of a house having the same lawyer. We know that, for protection, each party should have their own lawyer. Under the contract that the previous government had, there should have been a certifier to look after the government and taxpayer’s interest.
I can assure this House that redress of these issues, the repair of these defects, is being done under a completely different model whereby our certifier is involved. We are employing the certifier, and that is the principal difference.
In relation to the allegation the member for Araluen has made that government is sitting on reports, I say two things: government has not been sitting on its hands for a start. There has been a very active process to try to resolve the issues with the principal contractor regarding the original contract. Unfortunately, as I said before, it now looks as though legal action is pending. Senior executives of the principal contractors have been invited to Alice Springs Hospital to view these defects for themselves. One hopes that, when those senior executives of the principal contractor see the defects, they may come to the party about redress of the situation.
The member for Drysdale has written to me on the issue of reports and whatever. I have written back offering him a full briefing. I have also said that some of these issues are sensitive; some are pending legal actions. I am asking him to come along and be apprised of this information on a confidential basis.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016