Page 565 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 5 March 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I pay tribute to Helen Cross. I now come to my amendment, which would simply omit the word “Government” from paragraph 2 and substitute the word “Assembly”. I move:
Omit the word “Government” in paragraph (2), substitute “Assembly”.
As I have already said, this is something the whole Assembly has been involved in, and pretty well unanimously, from 1989 onwards—a period that you and I are well aware of, Mr Speaker—through to 2004, when Helen Cross initially brought in a bill. I recall detailed consultations between then Minister Bill Wood, myself, Helen and—who else did we have in the Assembly then?—Ros Dundas. All groups were involved in this.
There was a bit of argy-bargy. Government officials were naturally worried about it going a bit too far, but we came up with something which was fairly reasonable. A task force was set up. Bill Wood chaired that after he left the Assembly; he did not stand at the end of 2004. That might have wound it back slightly. There were some concerns in relation to some of the legislation perhaps going too far, but it was groundbreaking legislation and it was legislation that fundamentally has stood the test of time. The task force made some recommendations which were accepted by the Assembly in either 2005 or 2006.
I do not think that anyone opposed any of this. The leading role taken by the Assembly—and it is the Assembly as a whole, not just the government—probably occurred initially as a result of the initiative of Helen Cross, but then we all got together. As I said, it was very much a case where there were some compromises, but legislation which everyone could agree to was ultimately agreed to. That was substantially different from the initial approach the government was taking.
In fairness to people such as Helen Cross, Ros Dundas, the opposition at the time and the government, who all worked together, it would be more appropriate if we took out the word “Government” and put in “Assembly”; it is something that we have all worked on and something that we can all be very, very proud of. It was something that Bernie Banton was very happy with when he came down here in 2004 and saw the debate. He was certainly happy that people in the ACT affected by asbestos, such as the Thurbons, were very happy with the role taken by everyone here. It was a very happy ending.
There was some tweaking done as a result of the committee Bill Wood headed, but that seems to have satisfied pretty well everyone, including some of the people in some sectors who are a little wary about it going too far. That has not eventuated. It is something that we can all be proud of.
I ask that my amendment be supported because it more truly reflects what occurred. It is not every day that we all contribute in a non-partisan way to a good cause, but that is something that occurred here. Accordingly, I think my amendment is a better reflection of the situation. We support the motion. It is very important to honour the extraordinary life of anti-asbestos campaigner Bernie Banton, the other people who have supported him, and the other sufferers—indeed, people who continue to suffer.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .