Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 2 Hansard (29 February) . . Page.. 493 ..
MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):
reaches that level quite easily on occasions as well. The exemption reflected the view that plus 15 decibels would not impact unduly on residents. The level was set lower than the previous year in the light of advice from an acoustic consultant that changes in technology would reduce bike noise, and assurances from the organisers that they would closely control participants.
The licence was granted subject to the condition that affected residents were given notice by letterbox drop and that an independent consultant was engaged to measure noise levels during the event. The event complied with its exemption as the occasional minor exceedances noted on the consultant's reports were within normal equipment tolerances. No complaints were received by - - -
Mr Moore: At what levels? They were up to 15 above.
MR HUMPHRIES: I do not know what the normal tolerances are. I imagine that it was a few decibels either side of that, but I can check for you, Mr Moore, and find out.
Mr Moore: I think you had better do that, because it sounds like a snow.
MR HUMPHRIES: I can check to find out exactly what the tolerances are. No complaints were received by pollution control inspectors or EPIC management in relation to this event. An appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal by several Watson residents, which was rejected by the tribunal on technical grounds, apparently received no support from those Watson residents who are closest to EPIC.
MR MOORE: I have a supplementary question, Mr Speaker. I think Mr Humphries indicated to me that he would find out those exact levels. I want to make sure that that is the case.
MR HUMPHRIES: Yes, I will find out what are the tolerances I refer to here as the tolerances from the plus 15 decibels exemption.
MR WHITECROSS: Mr Speaker, my question without notice is to Mr De Domenico in his capacity as Minister for Urban Services. Minister, in the Estimates Committee last year you gave an assurance that staff employed in the Can It Squad would receive adequate chemical handling training before they were engaged in the removal of graffiti. Can you confirm that since that time the Can It Squad has had a substantial turnover of staff and that the staff who are currently actively engaged in the removal of graffiti have received no training in the handling of the dangerous chemicals involved?
MR DE DOMENICO: I thank Mr Whitecross for his question. No, I cannot say yes or no as to whether there has been a turnover of staff. I can give Mr Whitecross an assurance that people currently working in the Can It Squad will receive the training required for them to handle the materials that they need to handle.