Page 3116 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 10 September 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
that no demolition work proceed until Urban Services reports back about the requirements of those two previous recommendations. Again, I support the Government's view on that.
Finally, though, the one point on which I disagree is the Government's response in relation to the final recommendation: That the Commonwealth Government be asked to fund the cost of the demolition of the buildings at Orroral Valley and Honeysuckle Creek. I am absolutely amazed at the Government's response to that. Firstly, I think the Government should not be asked to fund the cost of the demolition; it should be told to fund the cost of the demolition - and perhaps a bit of muscle should be used. Why on earth would the Follett Labor Government say, "Well, we sort of agree. Instead of asking the Commonwealth Government to pay for it, we will prepare a submission asking that they pay for half of it"? However did you come up with a response like that - unless it has already been agreed? That is the only possible conclusion I can come to.
Mr Wood: Mr Duby, we are realists.
MR DUBY: I also am a realist. I am also a poker player, and you do not start off by betting half your stake. You start off by saying, "It is your full responsibility".
Mr Wood: It is dangerous the way it is.
MR DUBY: Yes. "Sydney or the bush" is the phrase. You should be saying to the Federal Government that this is their responsibility and they should therefore be bearing the cost of all of it. You should not be going namby-pamby, cap in hand to the Commonwealth Government and saying, "Maybe we can go half and half". I know what the end result will be if that is your starting posture. It will be that you will pay nine-tenths and the Commonwealth will pay one-tenth, and Ros Kelly will unveil the plaque. I am pretty sure that that will be the end result.
Mr Wood: If they came in with one-tenth I would probably agree with that.
MR DUBY: Here we go! Put it on record. All in all, I think this has been a good report, apart from the minor disagreement about the height of the retaining wall being eight inches, which I do not think matters much. It does recognise the historical and heritage value of the stations, and I generally support the Government's response to it.
MRS GRASSBY (9.43): There is no doubt that these sites are a hazard and an eyesore, and the potential threat to the environment and to visitors from dangerous substances and rusting metal should not be allowed to continue. As Mr Duby has pointed out, just about every member of the Assembly has served on this committee, so we all know about these tracking stations.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .