Page 3675 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 27 October 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
appropriately recorded. However, it is important to note this: the full planning approval process is still required for any proposal to rebuild in a heritage area.
Finally, the amendments to the Dangerous Substances (General) Regulation 2004 are technical amendments. These are to clarify that oversight of the asbestos removal process in relation to affected residential premises is the responsibility of the asbestos removal business rather than the individual worker who actually carries out the work.
The bill seeks to minimise costs and delays to the demolition program as well as to maximise revenue to the territory to achieve the goal of once and for all eradicating the Mr Fluffy legacy from the ACT. The amendments contained in this bill will streamline processes for demolition of residential premises affected by loose-fill asbestos insulation and facilitate the resale of the remediated blocks. The amendments also enable land rent to be offered to eligible former home owners who return to their block through the first right of refusal in recognition that in certain circumstances this would provide the only means available for some to return and to rebuild a home in their original community. Enabling the demolition and resale of blocks to happen smoothly and without delay will minimise the costs to the territory but, most importantly, will assist the ACT community in recovering and moving on from the Mr Fluffy legacy.
I thank members for their support of the bill in principle. I do note the Leader of the Opposition made some comments in his remarks where I believe there has been a misunderstanding. I understand, and I have been advised, that the opposition were briefed on these matters but it is clear that there has been a misunderstanding, particularly in relation to the statements Mr Hanson made that are not based on fact in relation to the amendments that I will be moving shortly, particularly the timing of a valuation.
I need to be very clear—and we will go with this in the next part of the debate but I put it on the record before we get to the in-principle vote on the legislation—that those properties deemed to be eligible impacted, as outlined in the amendments I will move shortly, would get valuations at the date this policy is released, not in October 2014 as the Leader of the Opposition was asserting.
No-one on the government side understands quite how the Leader of the Opposition reached that conclusion but I want to be very clear on what the Leader of the Opposition incorrectly stated earlier in relation to these amendments. The advice I have from the task force, reconfirmed in just the past few minutes, is very clear that the relevant date is the date that the impacted policy is released, not 28 October 2014. So I hope that clarifies a particular element of the Leader of the Opposition’s concerns because, as he indicated in his remarks—and I appreciate and acknowledge this—there has been a great effort for tripartisanship in relation to the policy approach here, recognising that from time to time there will be areas of policy difference, and that is the nature of a parliamentary system.
The government has sought to work closely with all members of this place to provide briefings and to work collaboratively towards a solution here. So I hope that the advice I have been able to provide the Leader of the Opposition will allay the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video