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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 5 (Hansard) 16 May) . . Page.. 1367 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

There are obvious responsibilities here. Some of them are with the ACT Government; some of them are with the Commonwealth. The clean-up issue, when it can be determined what the clean-up needs to be, will be negotiated between the two bodies. Those opposite must realise that the Commonwealth land at Kingston is still Commonwealth land. Until it is gazetted, it is still national land. Of course, it will stay that way until we have the agreements that Paul Keating alluded to in his letter of last year and that many others have alluded to in many pieces of correspondence or interviews since.

The reality of the situation is, as many of the documents have suggested, that the Commonwealth has some requirements for clean-up - some very clear requirements under the self-government Act - and the ACT Government has some clear responsibilities too. Those responsibilities will be negotiated; but, first and foremost, Mr Speaker, we have to determine what, if any, contamination actually exists on the site, so that those negotiations can continue. That is the approach that we are taking right now. As the committee's response is now on the table in the Assembly, we can go ahead with the survey of contaminated sites.

That was something that we would have liked to go on with last year, but this Assembly required that no significant amounts of money should be spent on the Acton-Kingston land swap. We complied with that approach and did not go ahead with the full survey of contamination, until about a month ago. In absolute frustration that the committee had not reported, I wrote to Mr Moore asking him for the go-ahead to do at least the survey of contaminated sites. We are now going ahead with that. Mr Speaker, when we determine what it is that we are actually talking about, negotiations will continue - as was said in the broad agreement, as was said by the Prime Minister, as was indicated by the new Minister, Warwick Smith - to determine exactly who pays for the clean-up of the contamination. Of course - I say it again - at the end of the day, obviously whatever it costs to get the land to a stage where it can be sold will add a cost to the value of that land. Therefore, in the end, our percentage of the cost, if not all of it, will be passed on to the private sector.

MS McRAE: May I just clarify a point?

Mrs Carnell: Is it a supplementary question?

MS McRAE: Excuse me. I am talking to the Speaker. Mr Speaker, may I begin under standing order 46 just to clarify a very minor point that the Chief Minister made? She claimed that I - - -

Mr Humphries: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It has been traditional for standing order - - -

MS McRAE: No, it is directly after her misrepresentation of me. I am perfectly allowed - - -

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