Page 3713 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 28 October 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
respond and programs were put in place. As such, I agree that if the ACT did go it alone in the establishment of the inquiry without having the commonwealth on board then we would potentially be wasting our time and getting only half of the story. Every effort should be made to bring the commonwealth on board and, for that matter, New South Wales.
I do not think that New South Wales is essential to any inquiry but it would clearly be a far better and more comprehensive inquiry and one that actually brought on board our neighbours just across the border, particularly in Queanbeyan—another location that is so close to us and that is affected—but also people throughout our region, some further parts of New South Wales but predominantly this area being the colder regions of the state. I think there is real merit in having New South Wales included. I support the Chief Minister’s amendment in the way that he flags raising this with the Premier of New South Wales and also the Prime Minister to seek their support.
I think that the commonwealth should not only participate but should also fund any inquiry. And, of course, having commonwealth participation is essential for making sure that the inquiry is thorough and has access to all of the information. If the commonwealth is a reluctant party to such an inquiry will we have full access to the information? That is unclear. Clearly there are limits to what we can do if the commonwealth is not involved.
I think the role the commonwealth has so far played, since we had the information 18 months or so ago about the situation we are in, frankly, shows its involvement has been very limited. I would go so far as to say it has been churlish. The extent of commonwealth involvement was to provide the ACT government with a loan to enable us to manage the cash flow but, of course, as we have recently learned, that will result in the ACT paying at least $200 million back to the commonwealth in interest alone, adding very much to the cost of our attempts to deal with this toxic legacy once and for all. The interest rate they charged the ACT was only marginally lower than a commercial interest rate and I think the commonwealth could have done much more.
So it is essential that they come on board to assist with an inquiry. Their response so far has been underwhelming and, perhaps, knowing their role in this issue, their response to having an inquiry will also be underwhelming and perhaps they are not interested in hearing the findings of any such inquiry. But it would fundamentally be a mistake for the commonwealth not to be involved in an inquiry.
On that basis I will be supporting the Chief Minister’s amendment this morning. I believe it provides a way forward that is sensible and that ensures that we will achieve an inquiry that is meaningful, that includes all the right players and that is the first step to getting buy-in from the commonwealth on this issue—something that has been sadly lacking to date in this current phase of dealing with our legacy of Mr Fluffy.
I understand that the reporting date means that we will likely see the December-February quarterly report tabled in the Assembly next March but of course I encourage the Chief Minister that, if he does have any fruitful discussions with the Prime Minister and the Premier of New South Wales, to provide an update sooner
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video