Page 4318 - Week 13 - Thursday, 4 December 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
This is a terrible circumstance, but it is a circumstance that we, this generation, must tackle once and for all. We cannot pass it on to some future generation to have to pick up the pieces. Now is the time to tackle this. I am supportive of the government going forward and taking an approach that deals with it once and for all, and therefore I am pleased to support this bill today that releases the funds to enable that work to begin.
MR COE (Ginninderra) (10.27): I too rise to speak on the Appropriation (Loose-fill Asbestos Insulation Eradication) Bill 2014-2015. In particular, I will speak to areas of concern related to my shadow portfolios of urban services and planning. My colleague Mr Hanson has already spoken to the bill generally, and my colleague Mr Smyth will talk about the financial implications of what the government is proposing. However, my remarks will address some of the specifics regarding the transportation of demolished houses and soil, the storage of this contaminated and associated material, and the planning implications of the government’s proposal regarding the reconstruction and changes to title. I know some of these issues are secondary to the key issues of health and wellbeing of those directly impacted by Mr Fluffy, but these issues all need to be considered.
The demolition of houses containing loose-fill asbestos will be complex, traumatic and risky. The government has outlined plans to move through Canberra, suburb by suburb, perhaps simultaneously, to demolish houses containing asbestos. I have some doubts about whether this suburb-by-suburb approach is needed and also whether it is realistic. The government claims to want economies of scale, but such economies are going to be marginal unless the trucks can carry waste for numerous homes in each load. If not, I fail to see significant savings through economies of location, and therefore the arbitrary approach might be more trouble than it is worth. As such, the demolition of homes on demand as they come available and to suit the owners and government’s requirements would be a more reasonable approach. However, we are willing to hear the government and objectively consider the government’s proposal for a suburb-by-suburb approach.
I am also concerned about the government’s stated intention to clear blocks, including gardens. In the inquiry, in response to a question I asked on this, the government official responded:
For that element, we will not be digging the block; we will simply be clearing it in preparation for future development.
Whilst many home owners were not involved in the construction of their houses, there is a very high likelihood that they have been involved in the sculpting and maintenance of their front and back yards. I therefore urge the government to not discount the value—the emotional value if not monetary value—of people’s gardens. This is especially the case if people are to remain on their blocks, an option the opposition believes should be available. Where it is safe to do so, I ask the government to consider the retention of people’s gardens.
I believe the ACT government is going to have to carefully manage public opinion, including anxiety, regarding the demolition of homes, especially in the clearance of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video