Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 10 Hansard (12 October) . . Page.. 2928 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

Mr Speaker, yesterday meetings were held with all the staff, including ACT Waste and ACT Health, to brief them on the health tests required. The concern is for people who have had a long period of exposure. The Chief Medical Officer, Dr Shirley Bowen, said in a release on 8 October that she thought it extremely unlikely that any of the employees would require treatment. A meeting was also held between ACT Waste, the EMA and Metalcorp to discuss the removal of the material. It was further agreed that the material would not be handled and all further deliveries would be isolated until the test results were known.

Mr Speaker, we have to consider the standards Ms Tucker is referring to in this case compared with how we have reacted in other situations. Members might remember comments that the then director of the Conservation Council, Mr Craig Darlington, made in 1997 about the Totalcare facility in Mitchell. If the Government had acted then in the way that Ms Tucker is suggesting now, the Mitchell facility simply would have been closed down prior to any proper testing. Mr Kaine might have been the Minister then. He acted responsibly; he did the testing and took appropriate action.

What if a former Minister for the environment, Mr Wood, had applied the same logic to the contaminated sites in Theodore? If anybody remembers, initial testing there showed that there was arsenic in the soil under people's houses. What did Mr Wood do? He called for a further round of scientific testing to determine the scope of the process. He acted upon scientific testing and acted when that testing was completed. The houses were evacuated, and that was proper process.

Mr Speaker, the principle here is that when you have scientific knowledge that defines the scope of the problem, you can act and you can act appropriately. You do not act simply because Kerrie Tucker or Craig Darlington says so; you get the facts, and you get the full set of facts. We received the results of comprehensive testing on 7 October, which was last Thursday. We called together the relevant parties. On Friday the tip was closed. The Government got the scientific information and we acted appropriately. Ms Tucker also criticised me for implying originally that only one load of the floc was contaminated. I think it is appropriate that I read a brief - - -

Mr Stanhope: You did not imply it; you stated it. There was no implication; it was a statement.

MR SMYTH: It is curious, Mr Speaker. Ms Tucker herself says, and she said it early in her speech, that there was one particular load with a large amount of cable in it that came to everybody's attention. She also talks about one load. The press release talks about the fact that there were 2,000 tonnes of floc there - we make no bones about the fact that there were 2,000 tonnes of it - and that we were doing testing. This is the advice that I was given by the department - - -

Mr Stanhope: Oh! So it was the public servants that misled you.

MR SPEAKER: Order!

Mr Stanhope: The coward's defence.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .