Page 1495 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 2 May 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Moore's motion also calls for full public consultation and so do I. I believe it is absolutely essential that the residents of Canberra have an opportunity to take part in the debate on recycling and on appropriate facilities for waste collection. They have been denied that so far by Mr Duby's action, but more than 4,000 of them have expressed their view that they do not agree with that action. If you can ignore the pleas of 4,000 people, I cannot, and I think you are extremely foolhardy if you do so.
Mr Moore has also called for a full consideration of the environmental concerns. I would expect the environment Minister, Mr Kaine, to fully support that. After all, in his document entitled Developing an ACT Strategy to Respond to the Greenhouse Effect, which was tabled in this Assembly, he has stated his interest in looking at the environmental questions surrounding recycling. If he does not support Mr Moore's motion, he is shown to be a complete sham, to have no interest whatsoever in the environmental aspects of this decision on recycling. So his document loses any credibility. Will the environment Minister go ahead with that stance?
Mr Moore has also called for a publicly available cost-benefit analysis of this decision. I think this is where Mr Duby's decision really falls flat on its face. He has said that the decision has been taken to save $200,000. Well, Mr Duby, it may come as news to you that the ratepayers in that area have already paid for this service and that some of them might just want some of their money back if the service is cut off without so much as a by your leave. So your $200,000 is looking very dodgy indeed.
You have not explained how you will achieve that $200,000 cost saving in view of the fact that these people who have been using the Ainslie Transfer Station will now be using some other facility. Even if they go out to Belconnen tip or Mugga Lane tip, presumably they will be disposing of the same amount of waste. So how are you going to save that money?
What about the costs for the individual ratepayers? What will be the costs to them of that 40-kilometre round trip rather than being able to use their local facility? You have not counted their costs at all, although, as I say, they have already paid for this service which you have cut off.
Also, you have not addressed the question of the increased recycling facilities that you are putting in at Hackett and Dickson or wherever they are - you have been a bit reluctant to come forward publicly on this - or the facilities that you have promised at Mitchell. What will be the cost of that? How does that stack up against your $200,000 saving? It is nonsense - arrant nonsense.
You must come out publicly with that cost-benefit analysis - and that is only on the financial side. Where
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .