Page 904 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 9 March 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
It is sensible not to dismiss the possibility that some houses remain that have loose asbestos insulation either in bulk or residual form.
There may also be some non-residential dwellings in a similar situation. The article said:
Whether an acknowledgement of such a possibility justifies a major survey effort at public expense is a matter for judgment.
One could argue that judgement was wrong. The article continued:
There should be little debate however about the need to be prepared to raise awareness, to provide explicit information, and to learn from the experience of the 1988-93 program …
The article continued:
In a private … briefing on the report … to Ms Gallagher in … 2005, the head of the taskforce, Lincoln Hawkins, raised the prospect that Mr Fluffy owners may have had no idea their homes were affected, and that the government should act to redress this …
The article continued:
There is no guarantee that current owners of these houses are well informed —or informed at all—about this issue.
A strengthened system is required for providing appropriate advice to owners and potential purchasers about the management of any residual asbestos fibres.
I could go on and on about a whole bunch of information that is certainly relevant, that is important, that takes us from the point of the original remediation through to the present day. I am sure that other jurisdictions would cooperate to support any inquiry set up in this place to look at issues that happened prior.
I end today by expressing my sympathies to everybody who has been caught up in this issue—not just the 1,200 current home owners who have lost their homes, but the many thousands who have been affected either directly or indirectly by what has been a tragedy, which I think we would all accept.
We finish in this debate with different positions. There is a unanimous view that there is a need for inquiry, but when it comes to a matter of priorities it is clear that we on this side see that it is important to move forward. It will never be a perfect world. We may never get everything we want in terms of costs from other jurisdictions or whatever it might be. But simply burying our head in the sand, using the excuse that other jurisdictions are not going to engage fully or meet the costs, is not good enough. There is enough to get on with. There really is. There is enough to get on with. I am confident that the work of the asbestos task force can work in parallel. An inquiry established under the Inquiries Act would, I think, go a long way to understanding
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video