Page 3819 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 24 August 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MS LE COUTEUR (Molonglo) (5.53): I will talk about Mr Corbell’s amendments and Mr Coe’s substantive motion at the same time. My response to Mr Coe’s motion is that it is basically a description of what happened and what has been happening out at the Parkwood Road recycling estate. It is a very factual motion. It is hard to see any reason to oppose it.
I think that, on the basis of listening to Mr Coe and Mr Corbell, we could say that we all in the Assembly are concerned about fire issues. I probably did not need to listen to everyone to know that. I think we are probably all of the same mind that the best practice approach to dealing with fire management is the PPRR approach—that is, prevention, preparedness, response and recovery. This is well accepted in Australia. The ACT government has adopted it and is, to a greater or lesser extent, doing it.
Clearly, what this approach advocates for is a practical and strategic approach to preventing fires before they take place where this is possible. This requires steps to strategically reduce fuel loads and to have in place plans and communication channels to make that happen. What Mr Coe’s motion is calling for today is evidence that this has, in fact, been done against the prevention and the preparedness elements of fire management.
Mr Coe’s motion today calls for various documents. I believe that it is quite fair for the Assembly and the public to have access to them. Specifically, the motion calls for a list of dates when the government visited the recycling estate, a list of advice given to the tenants and any fire risk management plans that are in place for the site. The Greens believe that these documents should either already exist on file or, if they do not, that they should be quite easy for the government to access.
I note that Mr Corbell’s amendment does in fact contain some answers, but not full answers, to some of the questions that Mr Coe has raised. On that basis, the Greens will be supporting Mr Coe’s original motion rather than Mr Corbell’s amendment, because I think that Mr Corbell’s amendment, while going some of the way, does not go all of the way.
We have some specific concerns about the fire. As I wrote to Mr Corbell at the weekend, one of the concerns arises from the TV photos which showed 44-gallon drums. What is in them? Are there any toxics that have been burnt? That would be the most worrying thing of the lot. Another more big picture issue is what work has been done on the basic location of the recycling estate. It is on the western side of the city. It is one of the more fire prone areas. I remember as a member of the planning committee discussing this at some length when looking at the draft territory plan variation in respect of Holt.
I think that the situation is regrettable from a fire point of view, but I think that it is not just from a fire point of view that it is regrettable. There are a few things. There are Canberra businesses which have gone under, which has reduced recycling. This means increased waste and increased waste to landfill.
The Greens have been pursuing over a period of years what has been happening to various waste recycling companies. It is generally not being that positive. There is
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video