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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 10 Hansard (12 October) . . Page.. 2940 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

We'll find out what they say because, after all, we have an occupational health and safety landfill working group. Why don't we work together and go through that process? As soon as that result comes back, let's do extensive testing right across the site and find out what the reality is. Let's find out if it was just this particular single load, this single batch that was tested". That is the normal process. It is the same sort of process that Mr Wood used in ensuring that he was going to test all those sites that we thought might have arsenic in them, and I remember that process very well. So there are questions about how you go about the process.

There are also questions about what the Minister knew, the advice he took and his intent in putting something into the media. Each of these questions raises the issue of whether or not he has acted in such a way that he should be censured. What is very clear is that he has not acted in a way that he should be censured.

What happened when the testing material came back? A very clear series of actions were taken. Occupational health and safety actions were taken. The Chief Health Officer was involved. (Extension of time granted) Environment was involved. I sat down on Friday afternoon with a group of all of those people, in Mr Smyth's absence, and went through what we would consider to be the proper process. At no stage did we consider that there was enough of an environmental threat to close the tip. It is really important to understand this. The tip was not closed on environmental issues. The tip was closed on health issues, on occupational health and safety issues. It was a Workcover issue. Also, a verbal directive was given by the Chief Health Officer under the Public Health Act that the tip would be closed until certain remedial action had been taken. That has been taken and I believe the tip was due to be reopened this morning after a final test. I understand that it did reopen this morning.

I think we have to be very careful in pointing the finger at others that we apply these same standards to ourselves in terms of the way that we act and the way we involve other people, particularly, Ms Tucker, when you knew there was lead contamination on that site. According to you, that was the case.

Ms Tucker: Well, if you knew it was a problem, why didn't you close the tip, Mr Moore?

MR MOORE: We did know that there was lead there. What we did not know at that stage was the extent of the problem. You claimed there was over 2,000 tonnes. We said, "No, we are going to test this further so that the process is entirely appropriate".

It seems to me, Mr Speaker, that this just follows a long list of censure motions. Mr Kaine clearly recognises that censure motions are being debated. It really is a problem when you devalue censure motions. I believe this is the third or fourth censure motion moved against Mr Smyth. In fact, censure motions have a very important role to play in this Assembly, but if they are used on matters like this they become devalued considerably. This matter certainly does not warrant a censure. What it does warrant - I think Mr Kaine has touched on this - is our saying, "Okay, with the wisdom of hindsight, how can we make sure that our processes are right and are in place and that we can do things more effectively next time?". That is what Mr Kaine's amendments will achieve. The Government will be comfortable about accepting those amendments. With the wisdom of hindsight, we should always look at what is the best way we should act.

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