Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Current HansardDownload Current Hansard   

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Tuesday, 11 October 1983
Page: 1611

Question No. 509


Mr Fisher asked the Minister for Territories and Local Government, upon notice, on 14 September 1983:

(1) Is it a fact that tenders were recently called for the supply and laying of synthetic turf for the outdoor soccer and hockey pitch and the indoor training area at the National Sports Centre, Bruce, Australian Capital Territory, by the National Capital Development Commission; if so, did the tenders call for permeable or impermeable surfaces on these 2 arenas.

(2) Is he able to say whether the product selected by organisers of the 1984 Olympics for competition surfaces during the Games was rejected as being unsuitable for the National Sports Centre; if so, for what reasons was the surface, manufactured by Superturf Australia Pty Ltd, rejected.

(3) Is the product selected for installation at the National Sports Centre of German origin.

(4) Is he able to say whether the product referred to in part (3) was rejected for use at a similar training facility in Germany.

(5) Is it a fact that an Australian company was not given preference for supply of the synthetic surface.


Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:

I am informed by the National Capital Development Commission that-

(1) Yes. Tenders were called in March 1983 for the supply and laying of synthetic turf for the National Sports Centre, Bruce.

The tender document stated that the synthetic turf would be laid on an impermeable surface which will be constructed as part of a separate contract.

(2) Different selection criteria applied to the selection for suitable synthetic turf for the National Sports Centre in that the surface should be suitable for soccer and hockey. Therefore since the selection criteria were different, it was considered another product was more suitable than the one chosen for the 1984 Olympic hockey competition.

(3) Yes.

(4) I am unable to independently verify whether the product selected has been rejected for use at a particular facility in Germany. On the basis of the information available to me it appears that the product selected has been used for a significant number of similar training facilities in Germany.

(5) No. The contract was awarded to Metz and Co. of Mt Waverley, Victoria, a registered Australian company.