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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 2 Hansard (26 February) . . Page.. 487 ..

MS McRAE: Are we now going to clean up the land that becomes ours? Why is the Minister instructing us to clean up something that was always ours to clean up? I do not understand why it is being referred to. If we owned the land at Kingston in the first place, then it should never have been the consideration of the Minister. If we did not own that land and we now own that land, are we suddenly responsible for its clean-up? I find that a very curious sentence. I think it needs some pretty strong clarification, because it seems to me that it is open to the interpretation that land that has become ours will now be our responsibility.

I realise that there are some caveats on all of that, but the way that sentence reads - "land to this extent" - puts a very curious spin on possible interpretations. I am still very concerned about what we are actually going to end up cleaning up. As I said, if we own the land already, then why is Mr Smith saying anything about it? It opens up the question of whether, if he is taking an interest in this, it means that he is distancing himself from a potential problem. I would very much like to hear the Chief Minister's explanation of that. It does not seem satisfactory at all.

Now that this has taken effect, I would also be curious about the timescale of the procedure and whether the Chief Minister has a guarantee that the ongoing funds for the National Museum of Australia are actually in hand. The Prime Minister's announcement last year was that it was on the basis of budget pressures permitting. After the Prime Minister's generosity with the Grants Commission yesterday, I wonder whether budget does permit or whether that is the extent of his generosity. There is no indication at the moment that the money has actually been granted for the full development of the National Museum of Australia. I am really uncertain about what we have given away our little bit of hospice and hospital land for. I am also very concerned about the implications of the contamination clean-up. Mr Speaker, I would be very grateful if, with your indulgence, those questions could be addressed.

MR SPEAKER: Mr Moore, did you wish to make a comment?

Mr Moore: No; Ms McRae made the ones that I would have made.

MRS CARNELL (Chief Minister) (4.08), in reply: Mr Speaker, with regard to the contamination, the agreement states that it is the responsibility of the ACT to clean up the land that we currently own at Kingston. That land has been part of the contamination studies. The studies have been done over the whole of the Kingston site, and it has been determined that the contamination is at a minimal level. All of the information is that contamination is minimal on the Commonwealth site. There is not any particular exposure. There is agreement on that contamination; but, as you see in the document, if there is contamination that we do not know about - in other words, if we have more than minimal contamination - then section 51 of the Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act will apply. It might be interesting for members if I table section 51. It states:

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