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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 8 Hansard (30 August) . . Page.. 2651 ..

MS CARNELL: Yes it is. I think it is public knowledge that StrathAyr are the people who provide the grass, but they also provided the turf for a whole range of other stadiums in Australia. They are a large operator. They are not the experts, though, that were engaged by the Olympics Unit. The Olympics Unit did employ an independent expert to give advice on what was the best sort of turf to lay at Bruce Stadium and whether the turf from Cairns was, again, up to speed, or whether it was not.

I actually do not know how the turf got to Canberra from Cairns. That would be the responsibility of the company itself. I understand there were some delays which could have caused some of the issues involved. But there is an independent turf horticulturist who was part of the whole process. StrathAyr were not regarded as the experts; they were regarded as the supplier.

MR SPEAKER: Thank you, supplementary.

MR RUGENDYKE: The Chief Minister might be able to take on notice how the turf was brought from Cairns. Could you provide today, Chief Minister, an appraisal of the standard of workmanship, the quality of the turf when it arrived from Cairns and whether any penalty clauses will be invoked against StrathAyr for the poor quality of turf provided?

MS CARNELL: The answer is no, I cannot. I will provide that as soon as it is available. But obviously at this stage, when no final decisions have been taken by SOCOG in terms of the future of StrathAyr and the current turf, it would be very inappropriate for me to make any comments as this could significantly legally disadvantage the territory in the future.

I ask that all further questions be placed on the notice paper.

MR SPEAKER: Members, I would like to correct a ruling I made a little earlier. I referred to a question by Mr Wood as being rhetorical and ruled it out of order. In fact I should have referred to it as being hypothetical. Mr Wood looked a bit puzzled about that and he was quite right. I apologise to Mr Wood. However, my ruling still stands.

PRESENTATION OF PAPER

Ms Carnell presented the following paper:

Cultural Facilities Corporation Act, pursuant to subsection 29 (3)-Cultural Facilities Corporation-Quarterly report for the fourth quarter of 1999-2000: 1 April to 30 June 2000.

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