Page 1419 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 1 May 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
mates. I think I have demonstrated that that is simply not on. We are doing it in the interests of all of the citizens of Canberra.
But even more to the point, I suppose, is this bland accusation that we are closing the transfer station and that people will have their jobs and their lives destroyed. I think that was what she said. Nothing could be further from the truth. Not one person who is currently employed at the Ainslie Transfer Station will lose his or her job because of the closure of the station. Those persons will be redeployed - we have that guarantee from the operator - into the further operations of the company which has been handling the station. So, once again, we see that the complaints that the Leader of the Opposition has come up with are nothing but pure sham.
MR WOOD (4.10): I suppose we could expect outrageous statements from a member who came into this Assembly with the idea of abolishing this Assembly and who subsequently joined the Government.
Mr Duby: Never; no; Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, I object.
MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Mr Duby, do you wish to raise a point of order?
Mr Duby: Yes. Mr Stevenson and I are being tarred with the same brush, and we both object to it.
MR WOOD: You can object, but there is no point of order.
MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Wood, please resume your seat. While I am sitting in the chair, I will be the one who decides whether we have a point of order. Mr Wood, continue.
MR WOOD: In that circumstance, I suppose we can expect outrageous statements, but the statement that this transfer station was closed as an environmental factor is as outrageous as any that we will hear anywhere. What a nonsense that is. The conservation committee that Mr Duby quoted is now gathering its forces to look at energy conservation in the ACT. A very significant part of that committee's investigation, and a major part of its aim, is to try to stop people travelling unnecessarily. But what has this Minister done? Quite arbitrarily, he has decided that people from 10,000 homes will have to take a round trip of 30 or so kilometres to the tip. You might dwell on the outflowing of gases that would contribute to the greenhouse effect as a result of that. When I was a member of that committee, it considered quite carefully whether people should be charged to go to the tips. A sound argument for that - though in the end I did not agree with it - was to discourage people from driving to tips. Mr Duby might tell me how he is going to reconcile that when the next report lands on his desk. We may well have a motion to review that decision.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .