Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 5 Hansard (14 May) . . Page.. 1214 ..

Mr Berry: You are running for cover, Mrs Carnell.

MRS CARNELL: I am not running for cover at all, Mr Berry. What we are saying categorically is that we want to get on with the job. We want to create jobs, we want to get Kingston up and running, and all those opposite want to do is nitpick on this whole issue. How can there be for one moment an offer from the Commonwealth when the offer is to negotiate when we know what we are dealing with? What a ridiculous situation! Yes, there have been discussions. There have been letters that have gone between the two parties. Obviously, all those things have happened, but at this stage it is quite clear that you cannot have a decision on who pays for what when you do not know what you are paying for.

MS McRAE (3.57): What Mrs Carnell fails to realise is that we are quoting from her own press release. The press release said:

... it has been clear from the start that any cleanup would be a matter for further negotiation with the Commonwealth.

How has it been clear and with whom? May I now quote from the uncorrected proof Hansards that I was talking about before. There was extensive discussion with the committee, on which Mr Kaine was sitting - on which Mr Kaine is still sitting - and where Ms Horodny and Mr Moore questioned the officials. The question was put very specifically:

Does the Commonwealth have any responsibility for assisting us to pay the cost -

that is the cost of cleaning up the Kingston site. The answer was, "No". Now we are finding out that it was clear from the start that any clean-up would be a matter for further negotiation. What was under further negotiation? What was the Commonwealth going to offer? You are giving us the impression today that things have been discussed, that things have been part of correspondence, and you are obfuscating every time by moving onto issues which are much more current. I am going right back to your comment in your press release, which said:

... it has been clear from the start that any cleanup would be a matter for further negotiation with the Commonwealth.

It was not clear, if you choose to read through the Hansard - and you may do that - of Friday, 28 April 1995. It has never been clear. What the Assembly is asking for is pure and simple: Give us a piece of evidence that shows that any clean-up would be a matter for further negotiation.

Mrs Carnell: What difference does it make?

MS McRAE: The difference, Mrs Carnell, which again you refused to listen to during question time, although you were asked repeatedly, is that on 3 May 1995 you made it absolutely and totally clear that only the private sector would do the decontamination of the site. There is a clear difference of impression of what is going on, of what the

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .