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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 8 Hansard (26 June) . . Page.. 2186 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

The issue of contaminated sites in the ACT has been particularly contentious over the period of this Assembly and leading up to the election of the Assembly. It gives me pleasure as chair of the Planning and Environment Committee to report on the adequacy of the processes relating to identifying and managing these contaminated sites. It gives me particular pleasure to present yet another unanimous report of the committee. It will be interesting to see how long we can go on having unanimous reports.

The issue of contamination is dealt with in a series of recommendations. I think the most important thing we can do with these contaminated sites is summed up in the testimony of a resident that is quoted in the preface to the report. It states:

Our only object is to ensure that our Blocks are given a clean bill of health and that the Government funds whatever remediation measures are necessary to achieve this outcome.

The vast majority of people involved want to see an end to the processes as quickly as possible. I think that is something with which we agree. However, Assembly members and the Government have wider responsibilities than that. They have to ensure that processes are in place so that if or when contamination arises again that situation is dealt with appropriately. In the preface, which members will notice is signed by me on behalf of the committee, we state:

... the committee acknowledges the sincere and deep level of concern shown by Government officials in responding to a completely new problem for the A.C.T.

There were times when the officials, we believe, did not get things just right. In fact, they conceded to the Assembly committee on a number of occasions that they had problems in a couple of circumstances and that on redoing it they would do it better. Indeed, I would hope that would the case. We believe that that was never due to anything other than a sincere approach on their part and that they were genuine mistakes that at times made the people who were involved particularly anxious. Of course, it causes great anxiety when one's home comes under threat, so I think it is important to emphasise that the committee believes that there was always a genuine desire to get the best possible outcome for the people involved.

The second recommendation is that the Government institute appropriate procedures to provide public certainty that land intended to be used for purposes other than those originally prescribed in a lease is free of contamination. Certainly when we are talking greenfields development, that is an important issue; but it is also an important issue where there is a change of lease. We also recommend that the Government establish a contaminated sites register. We believe that the most important issue is public knowledge. Knowledge should be available to people so that they can determine whether a site is contaminated and whether they wish to use it for their particular purposes.

The committee has framed this report in a way that we hope will be helpful, particularly to people who come back and look at it in the future but also to people who find that they are on contaminated sites. In the very early part we set out the historical aspects in a way similar to the Auditor-General's report but go further. Thanks to a motion of the

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