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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 5 Hansard (14 May) . . Page.. 1427 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

Let me conclude by briefly reminding members of Totalcare's environmental record. First, the company has always complied with ACT environmental law and is already working to ensure that it is well placed to comply with the new environmental protection laws the Government is about to introduce. Secondly, the company has cooperated with the Pollution Control Authority and has voluntarily taken steps beyond legal requirements, such as installing a lockout mechanism to prevent loading of the incinerator when it is not at the correct operating temperature. Thirdly, the company regularly rejects material for incineration, despite the opportunity for profit, because it cannot dispose of this material safely and in accordance with environmental standards. In fact, Totalcare rejects more material for incineration than it accepts. Is this, as the Greens pretend, some irresponsible organisation that takes material regardless of the consequences and puts it through its incinerator? I think not.

It may be necessary at some time in the future for Totalcare to take on business that is not core business - Ms Horodny seems to think that taking on business that is not core business is a bad thing - but it will not be taking on business of a kind that would be detrimental to the environment of this Territory. Finally, the company monitors best practice business and environmental standards, and regularly updates and improves its equipment within sensible business parameters. In summary, Madam Deputy Speaker, Totalcare has met, and must continue to meet, appropriate and ever tougher environmental standards. I do not believe that it has acted detrimentally to the interests of this community. I think the Greens would do well to consider seriously the allegations that they make, presumably in error, about the operations of this organisation.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (5.12): Mr Speaker, I rise briefly to make a couple of points in response to Mr Corbell's amendments. The Government will support the amendments as amended. I will make a couple of observations about them. I think it is not inappropriate to ask the Commissioner for the Environment to do this work; but, as Ms Horodny has pointed out, the commissioner is quite busy at the moment. He has the pesticides inquiry he is presently doing at the suggestion of this Assembly, I understand, and he also has the State of the Environment report, which is due later this year, both of which will absorb a great deal of his time and resources. I am not sure that we should expect that the report will be available by the end of September, but I have no problem with the Assembly asking him to undertake a report. If it comes out later than that, I have no particular problem with that. I also want to table the - - -

Mr Berry: You might have to allocate some more resources.

MR HUMPHRIES: It is not just a question of resources. There is only one commissioner, and he generally does the work himself rather than rely on lots of other people to do it. The suggestion is made that we should allocate more resources. I think this question needs to be asked in this case: Where is the case for an urgent and important investigation of these matters? I come back to the observation that no-one has yet shown that there is something wrong at Totalcare that needs to be fixed, or even cast a serious element of doubt about its operations. We have heard about the soot. That is a concern. I am glad that the soot has now been fixed. But I do not think that the build-up of soot at Totalcare is a solid basis for getting the Commissioner for the Environment to do a major and quite resource-intensive report.

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