Page 898 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 9 March 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
A critical component of the story is the decisions made before self-government about the design parameters of the original removal program and, of course, in its implementation by the then fledgling ACT government. The balance is the decisions by successive territory governments over time as asbestos in all forms was ultimately banned from use and as the regulatory framework continued to evolve.
This history underscores why it is just ludicrous to suggest that any inquiry into the Mr Fluffy issue starts in 1989. Any inquiry into this issue that takes 1989 as a fixed, unreviewable starting point would be fundamentally flawed. More importantly, this history underscores why it is critical that the commonwealth be fully engaged and involved in any examination. The commonwealth was responsible for the day-to-day management of Canberra before, during and after Mr Fluffy was installed. The commonwealth designed the original removal program.
If we can ever hope to provide the full story, we must openly and thoroughly review the period before self-government when a known hazardous substance was, at best, not prevented from being installed in over 1,000 Canberra houses. Any examination simply must have access to commonwealth documents, legal advice, commonwealth officials and the records of the commonwealth executive. As many have observed correctly, given that we are a territory, there are real legal issues in this regard, but these could be overcome with the agreement of the commonwealth government to fully participate.
Because of the central role of the commonwealth in the history of the Mr Fluffy issue, the government has determined that it will not embark on a review without commonwealth participation and assistance, including in defraying the obviously very substantial costs involved. By effectively proposing the ACT equivalent of a royal commission but by so severely restricting its parameters, the Leader of the Opposition is proposing spending many millions—quite likely tens of millions—without actually achieving what the affected residents and the community state they want: the full truth and the full history.
The ACT government has already published key documents which it created. To commit further very significant expenditure to an inquiry process unless we are going to properly get to the bottom of the issue once and for all would be completely counterproductive.
The other critical consideration relevant to this debate today is that the enduring solution to the crisis faced by our city in 2014 will come only when houses are rebuilt on remediated blocks. This can only happen when the task force completes the demolition of houses acquired by the territory government under the scheme. Today that number is 836, of which nearly 100 have been removed. Including the current work underway, any inquiry would only serve to delay our goal of getting the affected resettled as quickly as possible, whether on their original blocks or elsewhere in the community. It would add to the time families are dislocated from their homes and their neighbourhoods.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video