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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 5 Hansard (15 May) . . Page.. 1319 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

in relation to planning controls over both sites, the committee considers these are inadequate and demonstrate the serious difficulties inherent in the current planning arrangements between the ACT and Commonwealth Governments;

in relation to the value of the land swap to the ACT, the committee concludes that the land swap agreement as it is presently structured is a poor deal for the ACT;

That is why we have suggested some different structures. The preface continues:

in relation to environmental and heritage issues, the committee concludes that these are inadequately dealt with in the land swap agreement to date;

That is particularly so with reference to contamination. The preface continues:

in relation to current and future usage of the sites, the committee concludes that these are very much up in the air at this time;

I think that is correct; I cannot see how anybody can argue with it. The preface continues:

in relation to other related matters, the committee has dealt with these in the text of the report.

As far as that goes, it seems to me that at this point the Acton-Kingston deal is still a poor deal for the ACT but that it can wind up to be a quite sensible deal for the ACT provided some of these conditions are met and provided we know what Acton Peninsula is going to be used for and can have an input into the way that it is being used. That is why it is an interim report.

I would say one final thing. The Chief Minister at question time today quoted the self-government Act and talked about the indemnity of the Territory. I was particularly concerned - and I think I raised the issue at the time about the way one reads that part of the Act - as to what was Commonwealth property at the time of self-government and what is ACT property now. Certainly, there is the issue of ACTEW. ACTEW was part of the Commonwealth Government, as I perceived it, at the time of self-government. If a Commonwealth government ACTEW polluted prior to self-government, then indemnity - even though it was ACTEW - may well still be the responsibility of the Commonwealth Government. Part of this deal is that it is not good enough to say, "Yes, we have legislation that says that we can be indemnified", because nobody will ever be indemnified unless they use the legislation to challenge the Commonwealth. That is going to be the tricky bit. What we have to do now is ensure that this contamination is recognised and that, with a bit of luck, the polluter-pays principle applies.

Debate (on motion by Mr Kaine) adjourned.

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