Page 724 - Week 03 - Thursday, 22 March 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
being put into public homes long after asbestos was no longer allowed to be used as insulation in other areas of Australia, and I think that matter needs to be pointed out loud and clear.
There is no question about the fact that this Government will be raising that matter continually with the Federal Government in a whole range of financial considerations. But, nevertheless, the awful fact is that there are over 1,000 homes which have been affected by this most dreadful substance. It has caused an awful lot of trauma and anguish to innocent ACT citizens and, frankly, I do not think it is a matter on which people should be trying to score cheap political points. With that in mind, I was most disappointed to hear Mrs Grassby's comments as she tried to make, as I said, cheap political mileage out of this issue. This is an issue of grave concern to a vast number of people in the ACT.
I notice that in her speech Mrs Grassby said that it was ironic that I, as Minister - I am very proud of the fact that I, as Minister, was able to get the asbestos removal program up and running, something that the previous Government had not been able to do - was the person responsible when I had voted against asbestos removal in the previous budget. I refute that implication entirely. There is no question about the fact that when the previous Government's budget was being put I voted against the allocation of funds for asbestos removal, but I voted against the allocation of ACT funds for asbestos removal. I never at any stage, nor for that matter did you, Mr Speaker, who joined me in that vote, or Ms Maher, vote against the asbestos removal program. We said, quite categorically, that the funding formula which was enforced upon the ACT was one which was clearly unfair, one which put the cost of removal of asbestos fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Canberra ratepayers.
Mr Wood: If we had all voted that way we would have no money.
MR DUBY: No, Mr Wood, I still maintain that if people had followed my lead the Federal Government would now have a major election problem on their hands because there would be people protesting and realising that this was a Federal Government problem, not one which should be sheeted home to be borne by the ACT ratepayer and taxpayer.
I noticed, through Mrs Grassby's speech, that there was an awful lot of mention of the fact that "I would have", "we would have"; I think the words "would have" were used some eight times, if I counted correctly. "I would have if I could have", it is the old story. That is the usual complaint that people have raised against the Labor Party. They would have if they could have. There were over 1,000 homes, Mrs Grassby had seven months to do something about it and what do we wind up with? We wind up with a contract let for 100. Not even 10 per cent of the problem was
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .