Page 896 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 9 March 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
(e) the Mr Fluffy legacy extends into NSW, with the NSW Government creating a taskforce similar to the ACT to respond to the presence of loose-fill asbestos in homes throughout NSW;
(f) an inquiry into the legacy of Mr Fluffy could only achieve its goals with the involvement and close co-operation of the Commonwealth Government, and preferably the involvement of the NSW Government, as the ACT does not have jurisdiction over activities of the Commonwealth and NSW Governments; and
(g) that the Commonwealth has not, as this point, honoured its previous undertaking to materially contribute to the clean up, and has not provided any assurance it will financially support and co-operate with any review process; and
(2) calls on the ACT Government to:
(a) continue to raise this issue with the Commonwealth and NSW Governments to seek the engagement of those Governments in order to properly consider the full history of the Mr Fluffy legacy; and
(b) seek financial support from the Commonwealth and NSW Governments for the joint establishment of a review.”.
The amendment properly reflects the history of this matter in this place and in our city. This goes to the commitment the government has to resolve the Mr Fluffy legacy once and for all and our ongoing work to determine the best way and time to examine this legacy and the response of many governments to it.
In his closing remarks Mr Hanson touched upon a conspiracy theory of sorts. Let me respond directly to that. I was not born in the late 1960s when this toxic stuff was pumped into houses. I was still in high school in 1989 when the first territory government was engaged in dealing with this matter, and I was not in the Assembly until 2006. So any conspiracy theories about allegedly covering up past involvement are factually incorrect: either I was not born or I was still a school student, or I was not in this place.
Let me respond directly to those series of allegations. I want to take the opportunity this afternoon to reiterate to those opposite and, much more importantly, to the broader Canberra population, the government’s approach to this issue. We have always maintained that the Mr Fluffy legacy and government responses should be examined fully and thoroughly at the appropriate time. The government’s response to the report of the public accounts committee cited by the Leader of the Opposition in this motion clearly sets out this position. The government has said so repeatedly since then, and I am happy to restate that commitment today.
However, the government has also consistently made it clear that there is no point in engaging in what would undoubtedly be a very significant and very expensive undertaking without the full participation, agreement and support of the commonwealth government and the highly desirable participation of the New South
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video