Page 843 - Week 03 - Thursday, 22 March 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
CHIEF MINISTER FOR THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY QUESTION
QUESTION WITHOUT NOTICE
Asbestos Removal
Asked on 22 February 1990: MR MOORE: IS THE CHIEF MINISTER AWARE THAT BIRDS., THE GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS EMPLOYED TO REMOVE ASBESTOS FROM PREMISES IN THE ACT, ARE IN CONTRAVENTION OF A SECTION 4 SUBSECTION (C) OF THEIR LEASE, WHICH CLEARLY STATES, "THAT TO USE THE PREMISES ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF A SERIES OF THINGS, WHICH EXCLUDES OTHER THAN OFFENSIVE, HAZARDOUS OR NOXIOUS INDUSTRIES, ETC-. SINCE ASBESTOS IS BEING STORED ON A PREMISES IN HAZELS STREET - OAKS ESTATE, COULD THE MINISTER PLEASE ADVISE THE ASSEMBLY OF HOW HE INTENDS TO RECTIFY THAT BREACH?
MY ANSWER IS:
OFFICERS OF THE OFFICE OF INDUSTRY AND DEVELOPMENT HAVE INVESTIGATED THE ALLEGATION THAT THE COMPANY WITH THE REGISTERED NAME "BOR.S. INDUSTRIES PTY LTD" IS ILLEGALLY STORING DRUMS OF ASBESTOS AT ITS WAREHOUSE IN OAKS ESTATE.
THE PURPOSE CLAUSE OF THE CROWN LEASE OF THE PREMISES ALLOWS, AMONGST OTHER THINGS, STORAGE AND WAREHOUSING, BUT DOES NOT ALLOW MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES WHICH ARE OFFENSIVE, HAZARDOUS OR NOXIOUS.
IN THIS CASE, BIRDS. IS USING THE PREMISES AS AN INTERIM STORAGE DEPOT FOR CONTAINERS OF ASBESTOS WHICH IS HAS REMOVED FROM BUILDINGS IN THE A.C.T. THE CONTAINERS ARE SEALED IN A METHOD APPROVED BY THE ASBESTOS BRANCH, AND STORED IN A SECURED AREA PENDING THEIR REMOVAL FOR BURIAL AT AN APPROVED ASBESTOS DISPOSAL FACILITY AT GUNGAHLIN.
THE ASBESTOS UNIT CARRIES OUT REGULAR SAMPLING AT THE PREMISES AS A PRECAUTIONARY MEASURE, AND IS SATISFIED WITH THE STANDARDS MAINTAINED.
LEGAL ADVICE FROM THE A.C.T. SOLICITOR INDICATES THAT THE ACTIVITY COULD BE INTERPRETED AS BEING IN BREACH OF THE PURPOSE CLAUSE. THE LESSEE ALLEGES THAT THE CURRENT USE IS AUTHORISED IN THE TERMS OF THE PURPOSE CLAUSE. I HAVE ASKED THE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION SECTION TO MONITOR THE SITUATION.
THE LESSEE HAS BEEN ADVISED THAT THE CURRENT USE IS CONTRARY TO THE PURPOSE CLAUSE AND HAS BEEN REQUESTED TO CEASE ALL ACTION WHICH WOULD BE IN BREACH OF HIS LEASE. IN THE EVENT OF THE UNAUTHORISED USES PERSISTING, I WILL ENSURE THAT LEGAL ACTION IS TAKEN TO PREVENT THE CONTINUING BREACH.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .