Page 3821 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 24 August 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
separation, particularly in the construction industry. I am aware that some of this is happening. I have recently been round the Mugga Lane tip. I have previously spoken to Village Building and other people about the subject. I know that there is some separation of timber. Village Building, I believe, does plasterboard and out at the tip there is separation of steel and also bricks and concrete. But not all of it is separated and not all of it is used at its highest use.
I understand that the reason for the fire was basically timber. I gather that this is timber which largely comes in unsorted. It is low-grade timber. We could do better with that. If the builders and demolition contractors were to sort this waste at source, I am sure it could significantly increase the possibility that the timber itself could be reused. I am especially thinking about construction timbers and many of the fine old timbers that have come out of old houses that are to be demolished. My house has some old timbers—some from Canberra, some from elsewhere—that were recycled from demolished buildings. We could do more of that.
Last night I was at a presentation at the ACT Institute of Architects. Part of the presentation included CSR noting that one of their gyprock products has 10 per cent recycled gyprock in it, but they did note that that was purely from unused plasterboard, plasterboard that has been out on sites, cut wrongly and come back. They had no processes for recycling or reusing plasterboard once it had had a coat of paint on it. That is one of the many areas in the construction industry where we could do better and we should do better.
In conclusion, I think that this whole story is a very sad story. I think it could have been avoided had the government been more proactive in terms of its support to the business in question. I would like to see in the future that the government provides more support to green recycling businesses.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development, Minister for Territory and Municipal Services and Minister for Police and Emergency Services), by leave: I am a little frustrated with the position of Ms Le Couteur on this because, if you actually look at what I said in my speech, I have addressed all of the issues raised in part 2 of Mr Coe’s motion. I provided in my speech a list of the dates that the Property Group and the Fire Brigade visited the sites at the Parkwood recycling estate. I have provided information on what advice was given to tenants regarding reducing fuel loads at those sites.
I have explained what the risk management framework is—that it is under the Emergencies Act—the powers available to the Fire Brigade under the Emergencies Act and that it is going to be addressed specifically in new licence agreements, when those are issued when existing licences expire in 2012. I have explained what the future management of the site will involve, those licence agreements and the powers of the Fire Brigade under the Emergencies Act.
So I have satisfied the terms of the motion, and I do not understand why Ms Le Couteur is insisting that we have to adopt this motion. That is why I have proposed my amendments, because my amendments actually specify when the visits took place, what advice has been given to tenants, what the fire management
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video