Page 241 - Week 01 - Thursday, 11 February 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Mr Smyth: We will be courteous and allow you to speak, Mr Rattenbury. That is how it should work.
MR RATTENBURY: Thank you, Mr Smyth. I am sure that one is going to come back to bite me somewhere down the line.
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Thank you, discussion across the chamber is not required. Mr Rattenbury, please proceed.
MR RATTENBURY: The Greens supported the Building Loose-fill Asbestos Eradication Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 in October. It is the last legislative step in helping facilitate the planning aspects of the government’s loose-fill asbestos insulation eradication scheme or, as it is more commonly known, the Mr Fluffy buyback scheme. As I have said in this place before, the Greens support the government’s buyback program.
I spoke about this in the earlier discussion about draft variation 343. I do believe a great deal of thought and effort has gone into finding the solution that is as equitable as possible and achievable. Taking action to address the Mr Fluffy legacy is vital to offer a solution to those who are affected to allow people to rebuild and get on with their lives as well as to remove the toxic legacy from people’s homes in Canberra so that no-one else will have to endure the fear and the consequences of living in a Mr Fluffy contaminated house.
As I said last October, the most difficult aspect of the legislation relates to the settings for establishing the land rent scheme created for Mr Fluffy owners. It has been challenging as there are many people who are Mr Fluffy owners who are financially stretched and will find it difficult to replace their old home with a similar sized home on the same block.
I just stepped out of the chamber briefly to receive some guests who had come today. But while I was out of the chamber I gather that Mr Coe made some fairly strident remarks. The interesting part of this is that his disallowance motion has essentially stopped the land rent scheme from being put in place. Because of the uncertainty, no-one has been able to sign up under the new rules. I think that is an important context to put on the table in here when I believe that Mr Coe gave us quite a lecture in the chamber this morning. I think that is highly unfair. This is an opportunity to allow Mr Fluffy block owners to land rent rather than force them to purchase the block if they want to live on their old blocks.
I gather that there is another point around the timing of this being brought on. I think that is an interesting discussion as well because there does appear to be uncertainty. Some advice I was given was that this DI for land rent was notified on 12 November and we had a sitting week the following week. So my advice is that today is the last possible day to debate this disallowance. I am happy to be corrected on that if my analysis is wrong, but that is certainly my account of events because otherwise the disallowance would go through.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video