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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 5 (Hansard) 16 May) . . Page.. 1372 ..

MR BERRY: Not everybody is saying what Mrs Carnell says that they are all saying. On Tuesday Mrs Carnell referred to an exchange of letters between the ACT and Commonwealth governments in relation to the decontamination of the Kingston site but at first refused to table them. On Wednesday you deliberately created the impression that you were tabling the letters that you had referred to on Tuesday; but it turns out that there is only a single letter of 8 May last year referring to a proposal from the ACT Government, and there has been no response from the Commonwealth. It is also apparent from the letter and proposal tabled that you are seeking negotiations only on the clean-up costs in relation to the AGPS site, and then only if there is major contamination. Chief Minister, will you now apologise to this Assembly for misleading it and, while you are at it, apologise to the community for misleading it with your statements both inside and outside this house?

MRS CARNELL: You cannot but get bored, can you, Mr Speaker? I will answer the question again, for the umpteenth time. Even in the answer to Ms McRae's question before, I made the point that I did make the comment, I think on 3 May last year - and we stand by it - that the cost of decontamination would be borne by the developer. Those opposite cannot understand that, if it costs a certain amount to get the land to a stage where it can be sold, then the costs of doing that will be borne at the end of the day by the developer. In the meantime, as I have already said - - -

Mr Berry: Mr Speaker, I have to go to standing order 118(a) again. Mrs Carnell should be concise and confine herself to the subject matter of the question. All we want to know is: Will you apologise to the Assembly for misleading it and, while you are at it, apologise to the community for misleading it with your statements both inside and outside the house? That is the substance of the question.

MR SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The answer to a question without notice shall be concise and confined to the subject matter of the question. Mrs Carnell is certainly confining herself to the subject matter of the question. As for being concise, she has a great long question to try to respond to.

MRS CARNELL: Mr Speaker, I started off by speaking about the issue of my statement on 3 May, which was actually mentioned in Mr Berry's question, if you remember, Mr Speaker. We will start again. That might be the best way to go. On the Kingston foreshore, right at this moment, there is ACT Government land and national land. The responsibility for clean-up of the national land is the Commonwealth's under section 51 of the self-government Act. The responsibility for clean-up of our land will be with the ACT Government, as would be the case in any circumstance. It seems that those opposite, no matter how often I make this comment, simply cannot get it through their thick skulls. I will quote from a minute from Gary Prattley, who is now the Chief Planner of the ACT Planning Authority but who at the time when most of this was happening was acting head of the National Capital Planning Authority, with whom we were obviously negotiating at that stage.

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