Page 3672 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 26 August 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Another thing I would like to talk about is how TAMS and the government should be evaluating where it should be spending its money. It is very important for the government to look at the cost not just to the government but to the community. In saying that, I would like to refer to another review relevant to TAMS—the Wright review on waste management. It has got a number of options over 20 years, net present value for different waste options. Option 1, which is to hold waste recovery at 75 per cent, has a net benefit of minus $20 million to the government. That, from the government’s point of view, was the best option, because the other options went back to the worst option being minus $113 million, which was to cease recovery efforts and go to export to landfill. The second worst option was to increase recovery beyond 90 per cent, which the Wright review thought would cost the government minus $82 million.
If you go to the next page of the Wright review, you will find that they do an evaluation of the economic impacts over 20 years—in other words, looking at the impact for the ACT community and not just the impact on the government. In this case, the option of holding recovery at 70 per cent—the cheapest for the government—basically was cost neutral from the community’s point of view. The most expensive option for the community was to cease recovery efforts and export to landfill, the same as it was just from the government point of view. But the best option from the community’s point of view, the option which had a positive payout for the ACT community, was to increase recovery efforts beyond 90 per cent. There are many reasons we have a government, but one of the major reasons we have a government is to do things where the community as a whole benefits rather than individuals. It is very important that the government, when it looks at the review of TAMS, particularly at the waste area given the work that has been done, looks at the benefits to the community as a whole and not just the cost to government.
That brings me to my next statement: I am very pleased to hear the Chief Minister’s statements about community consultation on what services we as a community want TAMS to do. We think that is a very appropriate way to move forward. TAMS is responsible for a lot of things that make Canberra a great or a not great place to live. I note that part of our agreement with the Labor Party relates to these TAMS issues. We asked for more money for footpaths and more money for cycle ways, because these are areas where the people of Canberra are saying: “We want more. More would make Canberra a better place.” That is true for a number of things for TAMS.
One of the positive things in this report—the opposition did not quite look at it that way—is that TAMS has a positive culture of trying to serve the community and being responsive. Clearly, the Greens are pleased about that. That needs, obviously, to be balanced by fiscal restraint and putting your efforts in the right direction. We need to serve the most important things, not just the most urgent things.
In conclusion, I would just like to say that TAMS is a really important part of the government’s activities. It is our local council; it is what on a day-to-day basis makes our city liveable and a great place to live. We anticipate the government will be reporting back on its efforts in response to this report, and we commend the community consultation on the TAMS portfolio.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .