Page 4197 - Week 11 - Thursday, 17 Sept 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
But in the context of the question, I can now actually provide the detail of that. It appears that Ms Le Couteur does not accept my advice or the advice of TAMS, or is not satisfied with it. It might have been more helpful to me in the question today if Ms Le Couteur had said, “I have received your advice and I simply do not accept that it is valid or true.” I think we might then have proceeded from there but I will now provide, for the information of other members, the advice that was provided to me and which I have previously provided to Ms Le Couteur but which she quite clearly does not accept.
This is what I have advised Ms Le Couteur so I will read the information for other members. The Department of Territory and Municipal Services has advised me that Thiess operates the landfill under contract C07226. The contract pricing for the operational landfill provides that Thiess is paid according to the amount of material sent to the landfill.
This reflects the fact that there are higher operational costs involved in processing more waste. It is not designed to provide the landfill operator with a greater level of profit for processing more waste. Thiess already receives the maximum rate because total waste to landfill is above 200,000 tonnes per annum. This means that Thiess’s rate can only be affected by the operation of the reusable facilities if those facilities are capable of diverting an additional 14,000 tonnes of material.
In 2007-08, the reusable facilities diverted a total of 1,716 tonnes from landfill. TAMS has informed me that the facilities could not be expected to divert waste at such a level—in other words, an additional 12,000 tonnes—that it would affect Thiess’s landfill operations rate. On this basis, I do not believe that the current arrangement would provide Thiess with any financial incentive to cause more material to be sent to landfill. There is, therefore, no conflict of interest in these arrangements.
Your second question related to a foreseen conflict of interest allowing Thiess to operate both the landfill and the materials recovery facility under contract. TAMS advised that Thiess operates the materials recovery facility under contract C82456. That contract provides effective financial incentives for Thiess to minimise waste from the MRF to landfill. The environment performance at the MRF gives me confidence that those financial incentives are working.
Independent and environmental consultants APC Environmental Management undertook a residual waste audit for the materials recovery facility in May 2009—in other words, a few months ago. That report by those independent environmental consultants shows that the materials recovery facility is processing approximately 55,700 tonnes of waste material per annum. Of that, only 1,300 tonnes, or 2.3 per cent of potentially recycled material, is sent for landfill.
According to APC Environmental Management, through this independent audit, they believe, and I quote, “This exceeds accepted best practice standards for MRFs and is an excellent achievement.”
The 2009 audit report is not yet publicly available but will appear on the TAMS website shortly under links and publications. The address is provided to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .