Page 3847 - Week 13 - Thursday, 18 October 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR HUMPHRIES: A load of rubbish, yes - under a welter of public criticism. They ought to have been publicly debated. I think it is most unfortunate that the so-called paragons of virtue in this area, the environment movement in particular, happened to retreat to their bunkers so quickly in the circumstances. I think the same could be said for their attitude towards the closure of the Ainslie tip. The fact of life is that we need to be looking at difficult questions, resolving difficult issues in this area, and, if the environment movement cannot face up to this question, then its groups ought not to put recommendations to committees in the first place. After all, they are prepared to be very vocal when the time comes.
I might just mention, Mr Speaker, in respect of the issue of split big bins, that I am advised that the Government is proceeding very quickly to consider the issues raised by that. In fact, the work going on in this area will be available to us within 12 months. I would hope that, when a decision on big bins is made, we would have sufficient information on split big bins to be able to assess the worth of those things at the same time.
Finally, Mr Speaker, the question of big bins is a very difficult issue, and I would not wish to let people imagine that there is a solid case for or against. We need to consider very carefully the benefits of providing big bins in terms of the economic provision of services in the ACT. The savings from big bins are very large. I think, from memory, that the Ku-Ring-Gai Council experienced a drop of something like 40 or 50 workers - that is about 80 per cent of their work force - devoted to the collection of rubbish when they introduced big bins. Of course, the savings flowing from that would be very large.
We have to remember also that there are environmental costs in having garbage collections taking place twice a week, instead of once a week. There are costs in terms of fuel emissions and the destruction of roads and things of that kind, plus the cost of disposing of it. Of course, all those things are extremely important. We cannot ignore them. But, as I said before, it is not the whole answer. We have to think of ways of finding inventive solutions to combine big bins with effective recycling methods.
With the greatest respect to the committee, I do not think the answers are contained there. Had I remained on the committee, I do not think the answers would have been contained there either. It is a very difficult question which we do not have the resources to answer within our Assembly. I hope that we can explore lateral solutions to these problems in the coming years.
DR KINLOCH (3.57), in reply: I would like to go in reverse order in responding today. I would like to thank Gary Humphries very much indeed for - - -
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .