|
Who pays for the Esperance clean up? A Test Case ...
Nearly 2 years ago, Lead Carbonate, a substance more toxic than Lead, was discovered lying like a sheet over the seaside community of Esperance. In dangerous amounts it was found in the drinking water, on streets, at the docks, on house roofs and, alarmingly, just about everywhere a child can play.
The lead dust is so fine it cannot be seen by the human eye, and therefore Esperance residents may be ingesting, inhaling, and taking it in through the pores of their skin without their knowledge. Exposure is especially armful to babies and children.
In addition to this, unacceptable levels of nickel sulfide levels have been found in some rainwater tanks of local residents.
Lead carbonate is mined at Wiluna, 950km to the north, and has been railed into the port during the past 18 months.
Despite the State Health Department claiming there was no evidence of a health risk to the locals, National Toxics Network, an environmental organisation said the claim was "extraordinary".
The new WA Premier, Colin Bartlett, led a ministerial delegation to Esperance in an attempt to resolve some of the issues and to firstly ensure the removal of the 9,000 or so tonnes of lead carbonate stored at the Esperance port.
An interesting position taken by the Premier is that he will ask for a financial contribution from the lead exporter, Magellan Metals, but will take action without it, if necessary, which creates an interesting scenario.
"... let me say that as far as public health is concerned the Government will not wait for contributions from the company," he said.
Who pays? And what does the OS&H Act say?
The question could be asked why the public purse should be burdened with the cleaning bill for a private organisation, if that organisation is found to be the source of the problem (which is not conclusive at this stage).
The OS&H Act is clear about the transportation and disposal of substances and the duties an organisation has to others other than employees.
If a thorough investigation reveals that a private organisation is responsible for pollution of this nature, wouldn’t it be a reasonable community expectation and legal position to expect them to also pay for the cleanup and whatever illnesses arise?
Moreover, if an organisation is transporting goods from A to B, wouldn’t it be fair by community and legal standards to expect the same organisation to extend its risk analysis to incorporate the entire trip, and encompass those other than employees, if that is where its business extends to?
|
