Page 3448 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 22 October 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
been working alongside, whilst the commonwealth goes through their processes, to put in place the early thinking about whether a demolition program were to be financed and how that would work. We are cognisant of the desire of a percentage, a reasonably large percentage, of the Mr Fluffy home owners to rebuild or return to their sites. That is certainly part of our thinking in the design of a demolition program.
I would say it is going to be very challenging to be able to offer a program that would be everything to everybody, that will meet everybody’s needs, noting how different the expectations and the desires of the Mr Fluffy home owners are. But we are conscious that there are a couple of areas where we are getting quite a strong response from home owners—that is, that some would like to leave, some would like to stay, and then there are some people that do not want to be bothered with anything at all, and we are trying to design a program that is sensitive to the needs of all of those people.
I will also be updating the Assembly on Thursday, in line with my previous statement that I made to update the Assembly quarterly on progress of Mr Fluffy. But in a general sense we are just waiting for the commonwealth to go through their cabinet process.
MADAM SPEAKER: A supplementary question, Mr Hanson.
MR HANSON: Can you give us an update on what the expected net cost of this program would be?
MS GALLAGHER: The advice to me—and it is difficult, so I would give this figure with caveats on it, because it depends on a whole range of issues which have not been bedded down yet—is that we would be looking at a minimum of about $300 million. Obviously, we would be arguing that some of that net cost should be borne by the commonwealth. Those issues have not been resolved—in fact, we have not had a formal response to the position we have put to the commonwealth—but at a minimum it would be a figure of that order.
MADAM SPEAKER: A supplementary question, Mr Smyth.
MR SMYTH: Minister, can the government give Mr Fluffy homeowners and other affected people a time line for action?
MS GALLAGHER: The time line that the ACT government have control of was to have a task force report and a position by the end of August, and we met that time frame. We have put that position to the commonwealth. I am not in charge of that timetable, although, from the Prime Minister down, they are aware of the need to resolve this as soon as possible, and I have got no reason to believe that they are not genuine when they say that to me.
We have had very good engagement, can I say, with the commonwealth. I cannot speak more highly of Senator Abetz’s office for the way that they have worked with me, in particular. The communication has been very good. Obviously the rubber will hit the road when a response is provided, and I am hopeful that that will be in
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video