Page 4316 - Week 13 - Thursday, 4 December 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I have also raised issues that do not appear in the committee report. For example, there is currently some uncertainty regarding the removal of all trees and vegetation when the government remediates blocks for resale to the market. I would like to see flexibility in the scheme to maintain trees and vegetation where possible, in particular where trees would usually be protected under the Tree Protection Act. I note the comments of the Chief Minister this morning that the maximum flexibility will be applied and that blocks will only be cleaned as is necessary. I welcome that and I think that underlines the fact that, as these issues are being highlighted and brought forward, the task force is seeking to respond to them as individually as possible. I know that that has already happened on a range of other issues, and I welcome the fact that the task force will continue to seek to provide that level of flexibility as much as possible. That will assist home owners, householders and families to maximise the opportunities in this scheme, to do it in a way that assists people as much as possible, and I think that there is room for that to continue.
I am very aware that this response from the government is by far the most fair and comprehensive scheme for dealing with the issue that any jurisdiction has implemented. The commonwealth, as we now know, conducted a failed removal program 25 years ago, but today when the danger has returned it has virtually left the issue alone.
Residents of New South Wales who own contaminated homes are not so far being provided with any enduring solution. That remains a key issue for us here in the ACT. Why did the federal government not engage more on the issue and provide more support, given its central role in the Mr Fluffy legacy? I do not believe that it was through lack of trying by the ACT government. I think considerable effort was made.
The issue is simply that the federal government made a choice to offer limited support and no more, and that is an explicit choice. That has not so much operated to limit the ACT’s response; I still think the ACT is doing what is required. Rather, it has operated to leave the burden of dealing with the problem disproportionately on the ACT—as we all know, a small jurisdiction.
I will turn briefly to the committee report. The committee report was presented late last night, and I would like to thank the members of the committee, as well as the committee secretariat, for the obvious amount of hard work they have put in to holding the inquiry and producing the report.
As I said, there are detailed issues in the report that need to be considered and responded to by the government. I note that the final recommendation of the committee is to pass the bill today, and I agree with that. Clearly, there is still work that needs to be done, and the government response today has either agreed to or noted many of the points raised by the committee. In particular, there is a range of individual circumstances that need to be addressed as sensitively as possible, that clearly cannot be resolved on the floor of the Assembly but require ongoing individual discussion.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video