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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 1 Hansard (22 February) . . Page.. 269 ..

MR STEFANIAK - the answer to Mr Whitecross' question is:

(l) (a) The department, following receipt of a safety hazard report from the OH&S representative at Forrest Primary School; and (b) The maintenance contractor, Norfolk Maintenance and Electrical Pty Ltd. Advice from the contractor was that such were the problems with the sub floor area and roof structure, repair was not practicable and that it posed a risk for use by staff and children due to subsidence in the floor.

(2) The employee of the contractor who inspected the structure is a qualified carpenter. The contractor is well regarded by the department based on performance over two years.

(3) No.

(4) The preschool is recorded on the department' s asset register but individual structures are not.

(5) On 24 November 1995 when the structure had been demolished and removed.

(6) Department of Urban Services were not advised that the structure was made of asbestos. Department of Urban Services were contacted to inspect the site on one occasion to advise whether there was any material remaining to be cleared.

(7) The structure was used as a "home area" for dramatic play and contained a child sized table and chairs, cupboards, sink, oven and a stand holding dress up clothes.

(8) The contractor has a current maintenance contract with the department for various trades (carpentry, handyman, plumbing, painting, electrical and gas fitting) and has previous experience removing similar structures.

(9) No. The contractor is required to use a licensed asbestos removalist when asbestos is present. The contractor had concluded that asbestos was not present. Once its existence had been established, the contractor used a licensed asbestos removalist to clean the site.

(l0) The contractor is responsible for the management of the work and the safety of his employees. Normal precautions with students is for staff to keep them indoors while such work is progressing.

(11) OH&S advice is that danger from AC sheeting would have been minimal. The sheeting material was removed from the site on 1 November 1995. Attendance at preschool each day is routinely recorded in the roll book.

(12) The department accepts liability for staff. Students would need to sue the Territory as no automatic insurance cover exists for students.

(13) No. As mentioned above, OH&S advice is that the danger from exposure to asbestos cement sheeting would have been minimal. As also mentioned above, during the demolition of the structure, the usual precaution is for staff to keep children indoors while a tradesperson was on preschool grounds.

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