Page 4187 - Week 11 - Thursday, 17 Sept 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Is the Auditor-General wrong?
MR STANHOPE: Is the Auditor-General wrong? I must say I am not sure I could recall a single instance where it has ever crossed my mind that the Auditor-General might be wrong, on anything.
Ms Le Couteur, following your question, I did take advice on the issue you raised in relation to a perceived or actual conflict of interest in regard to the arrangements applying to Thiess in its dual roles in the management of waste services and in recovery and recycling. The advice I have received from TAMS, from Waste ACT, in relation to the issue, and in relation most specifically to Thiess at ACT waste recovery services at Mugga and Mitchell, was that there was no conflict of interest, that the nature of the arrangements militated very much against there being a conflict of interest and that the way in which the contractual arrangements had been constructed ensured that there was not a conflict of interest.
I have received that advice, Ms Le Couteur. I must say I am not quite sure why, if I had received it, I would not have provided it or tabled it. I will have a look at the form in which it was received. I would be more than happy to provide you with the advice, the explanation and the rationale that I have received, the basis of the advice in relation to this issue, which assured me and gave me the comfort that I think is sufficient to not believe that there is any issue in relation to conflict between the dual roles of Thiess in regard to waste and recycling. I have received that advice, I have received that assurance, and I am more than happy to provide the rationale, the justification and the explanation to you, in the hope that it will also deal with your concerns.
MR SPEAKER: Ms Le Couteur, a supplementary question?
MS LE COUTEUR: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I understand that Thiess receives a higher rate of payment if it sends over 200,000 tonnes of waste to landfill. Last year I understand it sent 214,000 tonnes to landfill. Is this not an incentive for Thiess to send waste to landfill rather than diverting it?
MR STANHOPE: Thank you, Ms Le Couteur. This was, indeed, at the heart of the question you asked and on which I sought additional information. I do not think I do have it with me, but I have advice, Ms Le Couteur, as I have just indicated to you, which addresses the very issue that you have raised about how could it be, when you have one organisation with two contracts—one to actually provide a waste service and the other to provide a recovery service—that there is not an inherent conflict of interest in that that particular contractor, in this case, Theiss, would not deliberately take recyclable goods to landfill because there was an apparent financial benefit to it doing so.
I do not have the details committed to memory of the contractual arrangements with Thiess in relation to waste and in relation to recycling to be able to provide that to you here and now. But advice to me exists as to why there is not an incentive, in the context of the actual contract under which the services are provided, for Thiess to take
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .