Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 5 Hansard (14 May) . . Page.. 1411 ..

MR OSBORNE (continuing):

I concede, Mr Speaker, that that area is a long way from my own electorate, and the prevailing winds pose no problem for us down there either. But I decided to get directly involved after being approached by a few Totalcare staff who, at that time, were becoming anxious about their safety on the job. These people felt that, if all the sensational claims that they had recently heard about the incineration of pesticides were true, then they were probably working under an unacceptable risk when handling and being generally around these highly toxic chemicals. Mr Speaker, after a number of meetings with various groups, I decided to put this motion together.

There are as many opinions on the safety of this incinerator as there are scientists and pressure groups; so, it is only sensible that an open and effective monitoring system be established. I have had the suggestion put to me several times that what I really ought to do is demand that the facility be shut down. Mr Speaker, I do not think that that is a sensible option. The facts are that cities produce waste and some of it is extremely hazardous. This waste will not go away on its own, and, for now, the best way for us seems to be to burn most of it. However, we do need to keep a closer eye on what is being burnt. Mr Speaker, in drafting this motion I have kept in mind two overriding principles: Firstly, my belief that the community has the right to know what is being burnt in its backyard; and, secondly, to err on the side of caution.

Mr Speaker, points (1) and (2) of my motion address the operation of a manifest system and the subsequent recording of the temperatures at which the materials are burnt. I understand that, at the time of tabling this motion, Totalcare already voluntarily had a partial manifest system in place, which in itself is highly commendable; but this motion takes it to the next step of accountability. I had a meeting with members of Totalcare management on Monday of this week. They informed me that - much to my surprise - they have not burnt any pesticides for at least six months. They also informed me that they completed an inventory of materials being stored on the site and that they now record everything that comes in their gate for incineration, both of which, Mr Speaker, I think, are well done.

Mr Speaker, points (3), (4) and (5) address the issue of burning pesticides at the facility, which has been the subject of all the recent controversy. As I said, I was informed by Totalcare that they had not burnt any pesticides for over six months and that the amounts they had burnt were very small. This differs greatly from some of the information that I had received from workers on site; but, as I cannot prove what happened at the incinerator - one of the main reasons behind this motion - I am willing to concede the point. What is of greater importance now, though, is that an open system be in place.

Whether or not pesticides are safe to be incinerated at Totalcare has been the subject of much heated debate this year. I am happy for this debate to be continued by those who are far more knowledgeable about these things than I am. However, I do not think it is fair for the people of the northern parts of Canberra to be fearing for their lives because they think they may be being daily showered with cyanide, as has been claimed by certain people earlier this year - not you, Mr Humphries. I see you looking up. I am sure that you will have something to say on that.

Mr Humphries: I certainly will, Mr Osborne.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .