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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 5 (Hansard) 16 May) . . Page.. 1366 ..

MS McRAE (continuing):

I am quoting accurately. Furthermore, attached to a letter that Brian Howe sent to John Langmore on 9 August 1995 is the draft agreement. In that there is not a single word about clean-up of anything, including AGPS. Could you today please confirm that the thing that everybody has been talking about in relation to the clean-up of the whole of the Kingston foreshore site is in fact the AGPS site only?

MRS CARNELL: Mr Speaker, it would be really nice if we could actually get some facts on this issue on the table today. Cleaning up the land that belongs to the Commonwealth on the Acton Peninsula site is the responsibility of the Commonwealth.

Mr Berry: You mean Kingston, do you not?

MRS CARNELL: I am sorry; I mean the Kingston site. With regard to the Kingston site, Mr Speaker, the land that belongs to the Commonwealth - that is, national land - is the responsibility of the Commonwealth. That is quite categorical under the self-government Act, under section 51. The land that belongs to the ACT on the Kingston foreshore site is the responsibility of the ACT. Quite simply, that is how it stands at the moment.

With regard to the whole series of events that have happened with regard to this issue, as members of the Assembly will remember, Paul Keating's letter of 9 May 1995 stated quite categorically that the detailed aspects of the implementation of the agreement can be worked out at officer level. What was being worked out at officer level, Mr Speaker, of course, was issues such as contamination. In fact, the then head of the NCPA - the relevant Commonwealth body back in those days - who was Gary Prattley, clearly took that view. In fact, in a transcript, that I am sure those opposite have, of a 2CN morning show interview on 24 April 1995 - over 12 months ago - the show compere referred to me saying that, if there was contamination of the Commonwealth land on the Kingston foreshore, then the Commonwealth should clean it up. In response Mr Prattley said, "We are in the process now of setting up a mechanism to work through all of those issues jointly". In other words, negotiations on the issue of contamination would continue. To add to that, we obviously now have a new Government and that approach - - -

Mr Hird: Thank God.

MRS CARNELL: Yes, thank God. That approach was backed up by the Territories Minister, Warwick Smith, when he was interviewed on 2CN on 27 March this year. He said, "The Commonwealth will meet its responsibilities and there will be no doubts about that". In other words, the Commonwealth's responsibilities will be met. The Commonwealth's responsibilities, as I said, Mr Speaker, are clearly set out in the self-government Act. Comments have been made in this house constantly to the effect that supposedly I have said that the Commonwealth has made some sort of categorical agreement to clean up Kingston foreshore. The reality is that that is not the case; nor has the ACT Government given any commitment whatsoever to clean up Commonwealth land on the Kingston foreshore site.

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