Page 2181 - Week 08 - Thursday, 10 September 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I am concerned that $2,972 was spent on training provided by the Australian Trade Union Training Authority. I wonder what training this department required from that organisation. Perhaps it was training OH and S safety officers; I do not know. I certainly do not see the reason for the environment and conservation program funding a history of self-government undertaken by the University of Canberra at a cost of $30,000. I wonder how that relates to the role, function and responsibilities of the Department of the Environment, Land and Planning. What form does this history take? Who is its author or authors? Why is the department undertaking a consultancy on it at all. What will we get from the $30,000 expenditure? I will be seeking clarification of those issues separately, although the Minister might be able to answer the questions.
I was a little curious to know the details of the services provided by ACT Sport and Recreation as a consultant to the ACT Planning Authority in respect of the Fairbairn Park acoustic study. Do we have experts in acoustics in the sport and recreation organisation? Are they going to bring to bear their massive knowledge of the noise of a thousand hockey pucks being battered about or perhaps the roar of a band of demented football fans out at the stadium as a contribution to the Fairbairn Park acoustic study? It is rather interesting to see that they are making such an input.
On a more serious note, I notice that the Territory Planning Authority has engaged ACTEW to provide consultancies on water quality. I am happy to accept that ACTEW has considerable expertise in this area, but I wonder about the process by which the consultancies were determined. I would be very concerned to know whether the process was in any way closed or exclusive to ACTEW. Was it an open tendering process that led to ACTEW getting that contract? I am sure that there are people in the private sector who could perform those consultancies just as well. The only question is whether they were given an opportunity to do so.
In appendix E, under the heading Court Cases, I find it a little extraordinary that of all the possible actions that might be brought for pollution of various kinds - environmental damage, planning matters and the like - of the 26 matters listed, 24 refer to dog control. It is a rather curious statistic. Some interesting things emerge from reading these reports quite closely.
I am concerned that, according to appendix N, under the Occupational Health and Safety heading, of 183 accidents during the year, 47.5 per cent were for strains and sprains, 22.4 per cent for open wounds, 8.7 per cent for bruising and crushing injuries, and 8.2 per cent for other and multiple injuries. Only 13.1 per cent of accidents involved other kinds of injuries. These seemed to be accidents of a kind that one would expect in an industrial work force, and certainly the department has a large component of that.
I believe that the statistics show a need for industrial accident prevention training as a major OH and S initiative, and maybe that expenditure I referred to, which was quite minimal, was aimed at directing this. If it was not, there appears to be a need for some OH and S training at the worker level rather than concentrating on OH and S committee members. Clearly, staff need to be aware of and know how to deal with occupational health risks. Perhaps these statistics will change dramatically for the better in this current year.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .