Page 969 - Week 03 - Thursday, 30 March 2006

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

(1) Has there been any monitoring of the use of recycling bins at the Multicultural Festival to assess whether there was an unacceptable mixing of bio-waste with papers, cans and glass; if so, what was the outcome of this monitoring and will the results inform the decision to permanently install recycling facilities in Civic; if not, why wasn’t any monitoring conducted.

Mr Hargreaves: The answer to the member’s question is as follows:

(1) The recyclables from the Multicultural Festival were taken to the Materials Recovery Facility (the recycling sorting factory) at Hume. Once these materials are deposited on the tipping floor they are mixed with household recyclable materials prior to sorting. Once the material is mixed with other recyclables the contamination levels are not able to be determined for specific loads.

My Department worked with the event organisers in a capacity to provide advisory services on best practice waste minimisation strategies at public events. I understand that while recycling has been introduced to this event, no formal detailed monitoring of contamination rates of the systems has been carried out due to the costly and problematic nature of such waste audits. It is not feasible to run such small quantities of recyclables through the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) in isolation to determine contamination rates and to contract environmental consultancies to undertake waste auditing and reporting is cost prohibitive.

(Question No 940)

Dr Foskey asked the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, upon notice, on 16 February 2006:

(1) Why did ACT Policing pay approximately $32 000 for Professor Barclay to review a case on Norfolk Island, Operation Dunedin, murder of Janelle Patton, in March 2002, as stated on page 17 of the ACT Policing Annual Report 2004-05;

(2) Does page 19 of the report, table 2.3, illustrate that for offences against property the apprehension rate dropped from 13.8% in 2003-04 to 10.1% in 2004-05; if so, what is the reason for this drop;

(3) Do pages 27 and 28 mention community perceptions of police and states, and of the five measures of Community satisfaction with Police, all showed the community was less satisfied with police by comparison with the previous year in table 2.12; if so, why does the report therefore state that results are encouraging and ACT Policing intends to build on the results over the next 12 months.

(4) Do pages 37 and 38 list Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal separately under “Taken into custody” and “Disorderly intoxicated persons”, Table 2.16; if so, (a) why does the AFP feel the need to report on Aboriginal people separately and (d) does this separate reporting in any way contravene racial vilification legislation;

(5) Does page 40 state that despite the quality of the Sexual Assault and Child Abuse Team, the successful prosecution rate for sexual assaults in the ACT is low and that the quality of the investigations being conducted in Sexual Assault and Child Abuse team is of a

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