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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 8 Hansard (26 June) . . Page.. 2190 ..

MS McRAE (continuing):

which was completely out of keeping with the way that the sites had been managed until that point. In fact, those people all appeared before us and, very kindly, not naming the Minister and not naming the officer whom they had contacted, conveyed their very high level of disappointment. I thought it was a very unpleasant and unnecessary hitch in a process of consultation and management which had gone very smoothly until then.

The Minister did not even know that negotiations had almost been finalised, and he took very little account of the effect of his change of course on people's activity at that time. He has since had to rectify the situation. I believe that it was a most insensitive and unpleasant interlude in something that was being very well managed. Some of the damage has since been repaired, in part because this inquiry was in place and people were able to come before the committee and convey to the committee their very deep concern with what was going on. I hope most sincerely that the expert group that has been put together to re-examine the difference between naturally occurring arsenic and that produced by sheep dip has a closer look at whether the soil under houses has to be removed. That was what people were most concerned about. They were concerned about whether their houses would have to be demolished in the process of remediation of sites.

I think this report is extremely helpful in that it brings out a range of concerns and a range of issues that people consider ought to be thought about more thoroughly and the real devastation that has been caused in the lives of people who one day were minding their own business and the next day got a knock on their door to tell them that perhaps they would not only have to leave their houses but have them demolished and that an entire block of houses within their suburb might have to be removed. It is little wonder that they instantly became suspicious that maybe the real plot was to get North Watson developed in line with the proposal that had not gone through before. There was obviously a very high level of personal concern about the real Government agenda. The inquiry has helped to bring those concerns and worries to light. The range of recommendations that are before the Minister offer him an insight that comes from people's experiences rather than a bold bureaucratic and perhaps more rational approach to the management of the sites.

The recommendations, although not numbered in order of urgency, quite clearly demand some very urgent action by the Government. Recommendation 9 demands that plans be out by August. The discussion paper ought to be out very soon. The demand for information is very clear, and the whole process of the management of the contamination of sites in the ACT clearly needs a lot more work. I think this committee's work has put the key issues on the agenda, has helped to create a clearing ground for some of the pain that people have suffered because of this unexpected intrusion into their lives and has shown to the people that there is a process whereby they can air their grievances, they can be heard and their grievances can be taken on board and give Government guidance as to how best to deal with them. I commend the report to the Assembly.

MS HORODNY (4.34): Previous speakers have covered most of the critical issues, so I will be brief. I too look forward to recommendation No. 9, particularly, being implemented. That is the recommendation that the Government announce its remediation plans for contaminated land and particularly identify the mechanisms and the timetable for remediation and how the contaminated soil is to be transported and stored.

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