PARLIAMENTARY BUILDINGS

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 33, 3 November 1920, Page 7

PARLIAMENTARY BUILDINGS

♦ ' POSITION OP THE'CONTRACT. alio Minister of Public AVorks (tie Hon.. J. G. Coates) gave the House of Representatives soma information about tho construction of the new Parliamentary Buildings in reply to a question put bv JJi\ I'. Eraser I.Wellington Central). He said that the contract was 6till in the Landß of Messrs. Hansford and Mills, hut consideration had been given to the fact that the cost of construction had been increased by rises in tho prices of labour, and material and other cause* over which the contractors had no control. An official committee sat from tjuio to time to examine all accounts and wages sheets, and determine the extra 'costs io which the contractors had been put. The Minister had allowed a certain percentage of this additional cost to be oharged as extras on the contract. It was true, added Mr. Coates, that the stone-dressing yafd on the grounds of the Parliamentary Buildings had been used | by the cdntractors ior the dressing of stone for other jobs. No rent had been charged by the Government. The contractors stated that only stone unsuitable for the Parliamentary Buildings had been so dressed, and that the operations had made possiblo tho retention of a larger staff of masons than would I otherwise have been the case. This staff [ was .concentrated on Government _ work i vHen supplier of stone were available. The Minister' stated that ho had made it cloar that if other work was allowed to interfere with tho Government work, the Government would ask for the fullihnon'-. of I lie contract. Ho hoped to have the building ready for occupation next year, but he was not fioing. to make a prediction. It all deponded on. wheHk"- nr not the contractors could go'J suitable stone in the required quantities. Every effort to got stone would be made, and every assistance he could give the contractors would be given, so that the work might bo got out of hand.