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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 10 Hansard (12 October) . . Page.. 2936 ..

MR WOOD (continuing):

did not know the full extent of the problem, but I acted immediately and those people were out of their houses within days, as rapidly as we could do it. It certainly was not three weeks.

He delayed for three weeks, threatening the workers' health. I said, "If there is a problem there, if there is a chance that the health of families will be affected, those people are to go immediately", and they were out within days and into rented accommodated that we provided. Further testing over a long period, quite extensive testing, proved that there was a problem and those people did not go back to their homes. That is the difference. Mr Smyth did not act in the way that I did. That is why he is being condemned today. He did not have regard to the health of those workers, as I did and the government of the day did in respect of Theodore. He has picked a perfect example for us, quite validly, to criticise him, because he has not acted with regard to the health of those people. That is the reason he is standing condemned.

At the time I took the precautionary approach of saying, "If there is a potential for a problem, act now; do not wait". Those who were around at the time will remember that I was accused of overreacting. Whilst I received good support in this Assembly, the Canberra Times said that I had overreacted as I did not need to do it. I think the subsequent testing showed that I had not overreacted and that our decisions were right. Mr Smyth, on this occasion, certainly did not overreact. He grossly underreacted.

If he had been Minister at the time, based on what he did out at the tip, he would have heard about the contamination of those allotments at Theodore and he would have said, "We do not know that there is a problem. Okay, we will get stuck into the extensive testing as quickly as we can". That took months and months. I think it took about nine months in all. He would have had those people still living in those houses for nine months and then he would have had them moved out. If he had acted at Theodore as he acted at Belconnen, that is what would have happened. He is, again, loose with his words today because he has given, for his purposes, an extremely poor example. It is an example that condemns him. That is why we should be supporting this motion.

I do not have the advantage of speaking after Mr Moore, who will be speaking next. Mr Moore ought to go back and look at the censure motions he has spoken to and ought to dwell on the words he has used there. I particularly remember a censure motion against me as Education Minister. He ought to think about the words he used in those other motions before he speaks today. He seems to adopt a different position now that he has some new friends.

Mr Stanhope: Has he ever supported a censure motion?

MR WOOD: Indeed he has. I know well the words that he has used in the past. I suppose I am being unfair to Mr Moore. I should not anticipate his actions. I am sure that he is going to get up and, with others in this Assembly, severely criticise Mr Smyth for the way he has carried on in this regard. He does deserve the censure of this Assembly.

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