Page 2806 - Week 09 - Thursday, 27 September 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
From some of the conversations I have had with people who have contacted us, I can be quite specific, for instance, about Revolve’s interest in this equipment. The general manager received an email from the education department on 24 May 2007 in which the department asked for details of the process that Revolve would consider for utilising the surplus equipment. Revolve duly inspected the equipment and began considering its response to the department. On 31 May, the department asked Revolve what progress had been made. I assume there was other email traffic then, but on 7 July Revolve sent an email to the department expressing disappointment in not having received a reply to Revolve’s earlier email. That date of 7 July was after the lock-out on 30 June, so maybe that had something to do with it.
Revolve then found out that the relevant person in the department had moved on. From that point, there was no useful communication with the department, and it is from this point that questions start to be asked about how the equipment was dealt with. Some interested parties became aware that at least some of the surplus equipment had been taken to landfill for disposal. Let me repeat that: it appears that at least some of the surplus equipment has been taken to the Mugga Lane landfill for disposal.
Upon hearing this, I was very surprised by how much surplus equipment had apparently been handled. There is one report of at least three truckloads, three container loads, of equipment going into the landfill. It does not equate with the environmental imperatives espoused by the Chief Minister and his colleagues; indeed, it is not even close to coming to grips with having no waste by 2010. With respect to this surplus equipment, people who saw it at the tip reported that most of it seemed to be in good, very good or excellent quality. It was dumped at the landfill. One’s immediate reaction is to hope that it is not correct but, upon checking, a number of sources said that, yes, some equipment was seen at the tip.
Some critical questions arise about how this store of equipment—things like desks, and computer desks in particular, steel cabinets and chairs—was managed and why it ended up at the tip. We have asked that question of the minister today. I hope that, in the course of the debate in the Assembly, the minister for education might tell us how much was actually sent, whether a value was calculated and whether he is happy with the decision to put this into landfill.
These are the questions that must be answered: how much of the equipment was sold? If it was sold, how much was sold and what revenue was generated? Was any of this equipment given away to interested parties either in Australia or in other countries? I would be delighted if some of it went to Dili, as was suggested. But we need to know how much was involved and where it is. If so, to whom was it given and what guarantees were obtained about the way in which the equipment would be used? The important questions in light of this matter are: was any of the equipment recycled and was any of the equipment disposed of in the landfill? These questions have to be answered.
We are not talking about an independent body just discarding material; we are talking about a department of the ACT government, and ultimately someone has to answer
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .