Page 894 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 9 March 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
and who have the uncertainty of knowing what impact it is going to have on their health and the health of their loved ones over the longer term, having now unknowingly lived in those houses.
That is a compelling argument, one would say, but something that is not so compelling is that this is no longer a priority for Mr Rattenbury, who has moved on to grander schemes that perhaps better suit his constituency. Mr Rattenbury said on 9 April 2014, “The appointment of a board of inquiry should be undertaken in circumstances where there is a suspected failure of due diligence or governance in relation to these issues.” Clearly, something went very badly wrong.
We have heard, as I said before, some pretty sad stories. I note Mr Kefford from the task force is in the chamber today. I know that he has been on the front-line of dealing with some of these issues. To humanise it I think is very important because there are people facing significant financial hardship because of the Mr Fluffy issue; it will have a considerable psychological impact on them. There are people who are essentially going to be dislodged from their homes and their communities after 50 years. Many people simply cannot afford to buy back their old block. Many people are seeing that the price is changing. Their properties were valued in one market and now they are being required to purchase them back in a very different market, one that makes it, for many people, simply unaffordable.
I know that Mr Kefford and, indeed, the Chief Minister are aware of the circumstance of a family with a profoundly disabled child. They had invested enormous sums to make their home fit for that child who had been disabled from birth. When it was valued, it was worth well below what they had expected and what they could afford, in part because of the work that they had done. That family are now left in a situation, essentially, where they are in ruin. They are in a position where, with a profoundly disabled son—they are in their 60s and have no wealth—they are going to be significantly disadvantaged.
We need a board of inquiry. That was the unanimous position of the committee. It was the unanimous position of this place. Some years on, with the task force mature in its work and with the program well established, there is no longer an excuse not to do this inquiry. The Mr Fluffy home owners that I have been speaking to certainly see the government’s position as an excuse. The government do not want this to happen for perhaps a number of reasons. They have other priorities, be it light rail or whatever. What is being put to me is: why do they not want this? Perhaps they have something to fear.
If one reflects on some of the actions taken since self-government by both political persuasions—indeed, in the earlier days of this government under previous chief ministers leading all the way up to today—there are some significant questions that I think need to be answered. I would hate to think that it is the desire of this Chief Minister to bury the actions of previous Labor governments who have this issue all over their hands and are simply using disingenuous excuses to prevent a board of inquiry looking at this issue, because it needs to be done. That was the unanimous position. When I say in here that I am disappointed, I know that is also the position of many hundreds of owners of Mr Fluffy homes.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video