Page 763 - Week 02 - Thursday, 12 February 2009

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

Revolve working side by side? We do not believe that is particularly efficient or in the best interests of reducing waste. That is the issue.

There is a contract. There is a capacity for one company or organisation to perform a particular function, a function that used to be performed by Revolve at the tip which is now performed by Aussie Junk. If we do proceed to invest $4.7 million into creating additional and significant waste screening at the tip face, then, of course, it may be that it is a function that Revolve would wish to tender for or that people who work with Revolve might seek to be employed in. But it is a completely different function; it is a function of a different order.

Neither Revolve nor Aussie Junk separate from the tip face every piece of cement, every piece of tar, every piece of wood, every piece of metal or organic waste. It is just not what they do. We are proposing now that we actually move to that further, more sophisticated and more difficult process of separating all waste, not just that waste for which Aussie Junk or Revolve believe there is a ready market through the sale facility which they provide. It is of a different order, and that is the point of the position we are putting in relation to this.

I look forward to the discussion. I am advised by NoWaste that providing a third bin across the territory to deal with organic waste would reduce to landfill the amount of waste going to landfill by 27,000 tonnes—14 per cent of all waste from households—at a significantly greater cost than the $4.7 million which would see a reduction of 20,000 tonnes of waste to landfill. These are the sorts of issues that governments take into account in relation to available resources. You can spend $4.7 million as our next investment and reduce waste to landfill by 20,000 tonnes, or you can spend tens of millions of dollars installing a third bin and reduce waste by 27,000 tonnes.

These are the sorts of equations which governments of all persuasions at all times in all parliaments forever have taken into account. I am told $4.7 million will reduce waste to landfill by 20,000 tonnes. I am also advised—I do not have the number with me, but I will get it—that we could introduce the third bin for a greater cost. It is sexier than actually separating waste at the tip face. We all admit it. It is easy, it is sexy, it is sellable, it is visible. It is not a group of people at the tip face working day by day through rubbish. But, in terms of bang for buck, at this stage in the context of our budget position, it is a far more efficient and effective use of the next $5 million of investment which we as a community make in waste.


MR COE: My question is to the minister for housing. Minister, I have received several representations from residents of the Causeway in Kingston expressing deep concern over the lack of consultation on the future of their homes. Minister, why are you failing to provide critical information and public meetings for residents of the Causeway in relation to their relocation?

MR HARGREAVES: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will excuse Mr Coe for his ignorance. He has only been here a little while.

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