Page 893 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 9 March 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
community—particularly tradies who have had to crawl through the loose-fill asbestos—such as their friends and family. By the government’s reports, tens of thousands of people have been either directly or indirectly affected by this. I remember Ms Berry being on that committee. Some of the stories we heard were harrowing. Many of us have heard great stories of distress and hurt.
This is enormously expensive as well. The impact on the budget is $400 million. It is an enormously expensive program. It is equivalent to the Cotter Dam, to put it in perspective. The health risks are in a sense unknown regarding the number of people exposed to loose-fill asbestos. By virtue of the fact that this place agreed unanimously that we would spend $400 million or thereabouts to finally get rid of those homes, it suggests, even on a cursory glance, that this was a significant health risk that had to be dealt with.
We have entered a period now where the work of the task force is quite mature. All of the homes have been identified. By and large, the issues have been resolved. It is now a matter of the task force getting on with its business. The excuses that we have heard about matters needing to be resolved before the inquiry starts have, by and large, gone.
The Chief Minister keeps saying, “We need to have a look at this as a joint inquiry and get the other jurisdictions involved.” The reality is that this is an issue of great importance to the ACT, but not so New South Wales in terms of the impact on New South Wales. Clearly this is an issue that we have had to lead on since self-government. I often hear in this place Mr Rattenbury and Mr Barr say, “We’ve got to stand up for ourselves. We’ve got to take the lead on issues. We’re a mature parliament.” I have heard it in this debate on numerous occasions. We heard it on the issue of euthanasia just recently—that we should be able to repeal the Andrews bill, so-called, so that we can go it alone.
But it seems that the instant Mr Barr and Mr Rattenbury see something they do not like, they hide behind the skirts of the federal parliament and the New South Wales parliament saying, “You couldn’t possibly do this unless it’s a joint inquiry.” That is rubbish. It is disingenuous. Under the ACT Inquiries Act we can have an inquiry. My conversations indicate that other jurisdictions would cooperate, whether or not it is a joint inquiry, particularly noting that most of the issues affecting the federal parliament predate self-government.
This becomes a matter of timing and priorities. It is quite clear that for this government this is no longer a priority. For the Canberra Liberals it is a priority, and it has been. Our position has been consistent throughout this whole process. We have been calling for the board of inquiry since 2014. The Assembly committee reinforced that position, as we well know. So it is a matter of priorities. I turn to some of the comments that Mr Rattenbury made. It used to be a priority for him too. He said in Hansard on 20 October 2015:
Certainly the scale of this problem is right up there with and perhaps even larger than the 2003 bushfires, with more than 1,000 homes and families affected directly and of course then the impact on neighbours, relatives and workplaces of those people who have been caught up in this as well. And we of course have the ongoing issue of the fear felt by individuals who have lived in Mr Fluffy houses
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video