Page 899 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 9 March 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
We all agree that affected contaminated houses need to be demolished. We all agree on that. It is the only way we can prevent future generations of Canberrans from being exposed to this risk. But this is an incredibly complex, distressing and challenging set of circumstances. We must do everything we can to ensure that the critical demolition work is completed as quickly as possible so that the physical, social and psychological rebuilding can begin.
When this issue was canvassed in October last year I stated clearly:
A story of this magnitude, this complexity and this significance deserves to be reviewed and written through a process that is robust, that is comprehensive and that, above all, provides proper and considered answers as to why this city faced the crisis it did … To do less than this, to heed to some sort of political timetable as outlined by the Leader of the Opposition, would be an enormous disservice to the community—not just for the owners who have lived and raised their families in those properties, but for anyone who has ever worked on those properties and for visitors who frequented them over that time.
That remains my view, and the view of the government. I will continue to advocate for the involvement of the commonwealth and New South Wales governments in any future review. I have raised this personally with the New South Wales Premier and the Prime Minister, and I will continue to do so. But in the meantime our focus has to be on what we can do right now to help every affected resident. So I encourage members to support my amendment today.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (5.20): I have put my views on the record many times before that the Mr Fluffy legacy has been a tragedy for Canberra and for many families. It has seen people displaced from their homes, it has had serious impacts on people’s health and it has been highly upsetting and disruptive for thousands of people. All of the people affected have my deepest sympathies.
I have also been clear that there needs to be a serious and significant investigation or inquiry into the history of the Mr Fluffy saga. How was this able to occur? How do we ensure it does not happen again? Where do responsibilities lie? I also think and hope that the inquiry can help individuals and families from a personal healing point of view. If it is conducted in the appropriate manner, such an inquiry can help people move on and can be therapeutic for people that have been harmed by the Mr Fluffy legacy.
Unfortunately, I acknowledge that at the moment there are real obstacles before the ACT government which mean that now is not the right time to hold this inquiry. Mr Hanson is already aware that I support setting up the inquiry, but he also knows—and I have put the view—that I do not think this is the right time, and I have said it on radio again today. I will be clear why I think this is the case.
It was interesting to read Saturday’s paper. I do not think the headline actually matched what I said, but that is the way these things go. I do think we need to have an inquiry but I do not think this is the right time. There are two primary reasons for that. Firstly, the asbestos response task force is in the middle of responding to the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video