Page 3849 - Week 13 - Thursday, 18 October 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mrs Grassby began the discussion today, and I would like to look at that in two ways. She raised the question of the 240-litre big bins. That particular issue, as those of us who looked at it know, is a very difficult one indeed. I do not for a moment agree that our conclusions undermined the credibility of the report; far from it. We took careful advice, including advice from the Department of Urban Services. Before some of us joined the committee, other members had been round the countryside, including Sydney, looking at examples of the use of big bins. Mr Humphries has already referred to that.
Again, we had negatives and positives in almost anything that we saw in connection with the 240-litre bins. I want to stress very much that the recommendations on the 240-litre bins were put in the context of recycling, and we were much influenced by one major report which argued for the recycling benefits of big bins. I agree again with Mr Humphries; there was a lot of immediate reaction from some people who did not think through the issue. But, as it happens - first the bad news; then the good news - we were aware of those problems and the committee recommended a trial only of big bins. Of course, based on that trial - had there been one - we would have come to some kind of a better conclusion.
Between the time the committee reported and the time the Government gave a response, there was a rather happy outcome. We learned about some changed technology with regard to 240-litre bins and we also discovered that the intermediate size was now being produced in Australia and that there were technological changes in those huge and specialised trucks which could lead to a change in the technology. So, I would ask Mrs Grassby, although I appreciated many of her remarks, to see what a complex issue that was and is.
I now want to come to her comments about the Ainslie Transfer Station and recommendations 7, 15 and 26. A lot of water has gone under the bridge; a lot of rubbish has been buried since then. I want to raise an ongoing problem which can all too easily emerge for all committees of this Assembly. Members of this particular committee came to certain conclusions based, we thought, on good evidence. These were then presented to members in this chamber and they have been on the table since March 1990. It is my perception of such a situation that no action should be taken by the Government until such time as the recommendations of the committee are discussed, analysed and resolved. Indeed, you could say that the first time such an action should have been taken was after the debate today.
As the committee chairperson, I have a responsibility to ensure not only the independence of a multi-party committee, but also the integrity of a process of debate and discussion which is not to be negated by an intervening
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .