Page 4298 - Week 13 - Thursday, 4 December 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
We heard from a number of couples who had houses that returned no positive tests for asbestos and they are scratching their heads as to why they have to leave. In one report there is an assumption that it is in the wall cavity. There are a couple of specific cases, indeed one lady claims her house was never a Fluffy house. There are recommendations where we ask the government to do additional testing, and if these houses are safe and there is no asbestos, leave these people there. That is their desire. But we put on that the caveat that they have to be informed in writing of the implications of staying and what it means to people as you get older—the Meals on Wheels people, the community nurse, the task force person, the social worker or emergency service personnel who might have to go to that property. This has to cut both ways. We have to look after the Mr Fluffy people, but we have to take into account the greater community.
There is a rec about whether those who run their home business from the property can have their properties remediated as a priority, because a family without a home and without a source of income is in dire straits. They need to be looked after.
There is also a recommendation about where we go from here. I think we all agree that the money has to flow and the recommendation in the report today says, notwithstanding the previous 61 recommendations, let the money flow so the government can start acquiring these properties and those who want to move on can move on immediately. But we have to make sure we get the information right for the remediation, and we have suggested the government might adopt a model of a statutory authority, a TOC, or form some sort of business entity where the properties would be transferred so that on strictly commercial lines getting the cheapest price, the best outcome and the best return on budget could be achieved outside the strictures of the public service. That provides some separation of activity—you have a body doing the work that will be regulated by authorities like WorkSafe et cetera to make sure we get this right.
I will say a few more words when I close the debate. I commend the report to the Assembly. It has a lot of recommendations in it and I hope the government takes the time to read it and not simply say no.
MS PORTER (Ginninderra) (9.18): Madam Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to talk briefly. Mainly, I want to, like the chair, thank the other members of the committee—including the chair, of course—for the way we worked together. I also reiterate his thanks to Dr Cullen and Dr Lloyd—particularly Dr Cullen. I do not know how she did it, but she did. I would like to thank her very much for the report and for her work. I hope that she can take some time out to regroup because she surely will need that.
It was a very tight time frame, as the chair has already said, and the two days of hearings were very intense. However, I would like to thank those who were able to put their feelings and their thoughts down on paper, and those who were invited to come to present at the hearings and indeed did so. That was a very difficult decision by the committee at the time, in deciding who we were going to invite to come and talk with us and who we were not. For me it felt very uncomfortable, almost like
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video