Page 107 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 24 May 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MS FOLLETT: I thank the member for that question. I think it is fair to say that the original estimates of the asbestos removal program were probably somewhat overstated. As it has turned out, very happily for the ACT, the number of houses affected and from which asbestos is to be removed is very much less than we had anticipated.
It is also fair to say, as I think the member pointed out, that the ACT Government was not a party to the arrangement with the Commonwealth Government on the payment for the removal of asbestos. I believe that we must take the opportunity to negotiate with the Commonwealth Government on that arrangement because we were not a party to it yet we will have to bear the ongoing cost - and bear it, as the member says, when the Commonwealth Government was the responsible authority for the installation of asbestos in the first place. I would be more than happy to take up with the Commonwealth Government, in whatever forum is appropriate, the question of renegotiating the deal as to who pays for the removal of asbestos.
MR JENSEN: I wish to ask a supplementary question in relation to that. If the Chief Minister is to take it up and if she has some problems renegotiating the deal, would she be prepared to take the issue of the removal and the cost for the removal of asbestos to a higher court?
MS FOLLETT: That is a fairly speculative matter and, I must admit, I am not sure what sorts of provisions would apply to that question being taken to court. It may be best, Mr Speaker, if I were to take that on notice and perhaps offer some considered advice as soon as I can.
LEASE PURPOSES
MR KAINE: I direct a question to the Deputy Chief Minister in connection with a property in Hedland Circuit, Flynn, in respect of which the Deputy Chief Minister took a decision only a few days ago. In prefacing the question, I perhaps should fill him in with a bit of background. As I understand it, only a matter of six hours before the Minister took his decision, an officer of the department exercising his delegation had taken a decision that the occupant of that land was to cease using it for the purpose for which it was then being used, which is a business purpose under section 10, and he was given 14 days to desist from using the premises for that purpose.
As I understand it, six hours after that advice was issued by the delegate and officer of the Administration, the Deputy Chief Minister reversed that decision and issued a new licence under section 10 for a further period. Having given that background, I draw the Minister's attention to subsection 10(2)(b) of the ordinance in question that says that the Minister shall not approve of the doing of any act
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .