Page 4315 - Week 13 - Thursday, 4 December 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The need to deal with this danger to residents and the broader community has been one of the factors motivating me to support a scheme that will eliminate Mr Fluffy from Canberra permanently. So it is vital that we appropriate this money, over $760 million in this initial appropriation, and let it flow to the scheme so that the process can begin. In my eyes, supporting this bill is a vote for the ACT government taking the lead on Mr Fluffy asbestos, effectively dealing with the issue so that it does not return to plague the community in the future and ensuring that assistance can be provided to residents who are unfortunate enough to have a Mr Fluffy home.
I would like to briefly discuss and provide my perspective on the details of the proposed eradication and buyback scheme. I am informed that the latest government figures show that over 600 households have now signed up to participate in the scheme. Despite this, it is clear that some people are not satisfied with the details of the scheme. In the last months I have met with Mr Fluffy home owners and discussed their circumstances with them and discussed the issue at public fora. I have also had several meetings with the Chief Minister and with the head of the task force, Mr Kefford, to discuss the details of the scheme and to put forward the issues raised by affected owners of Mr Fluffy houses.
My view, broadly, is that the Chief Minister and the asbestos task force have tried very hard to find an equitable and achievable solution, especially given the limited support the federal government will provide. Also, broadly, I think the approach taken by the scheme is the right one. I have come to this position as a Greens MLA who is concerned about fairness for the Canberra community but also as a Greens member of the government who is aware of the practical limitations on government and the impossibility of meeting the precise needs of every person affected.
Just as one example, there is currently a group of displaced people who are very eager to receive the payment from the government. Every delay in the payment increases their hardship. At the same time, there are people who would like to delay the scheme and change certain parts of it, which would also delay the flow of money to those who are eager for it. Similarly, there are some home owners who, like the task force, strongly agree that the affected homes need to be demolished to be made safe. They want to leave their houses and be compensated. There are others who do not agree with the demolition and who want to see a second attempt at cleaning and remediation.
There clearly is not a solution that can please all of these people. However, I do acknowledge that there remain various issues where it may be possible for the government to deliver a more flexible and individualised approach. As I have said, I have raised several of these matters with the Chief Minister. The committee report that was delivered last night has obviously raised some of the same concerns, touching on issues such as additional options for people wishing to return to their land or stay on their land; issues facing families who sold prior to the announcement of the scheme with full disclosure and at a low price; and equity questions regarding people who demolished their houses prior to the scheme announcement. I acknowledge that in the Chief Minister’s reply to the committee report and in the speech she has just delivered she has already supported many of the recommendations and has emphasised that the task force is committed to working through problematic issues with individual home owners.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video