Sub Main Menu
sunshine coast
noosa
coolum
national
world
9:36AM Saturday 06 September, 2008 Sunshine Coast weather Windy min 12° - max 23°

Natoli says landfill claim is rubbish

Mayoral candidate Joe Natoli says rival candidate Bob Abbot’s claims the Coast can be landfill-free by 2020 are rubbish and has demanded the Noosa mayor release the cost of the plans.

The demand comes as a community group accused Mr Natoli of using political scare tactics to mislead voters about the cost of stopping work on a proposed bioreactor dump near Yandina.

Kulangoor Anti Dump Action Group chairman Peter Sheen said Mr Natoli had quoted inflated figures during a recent television news interview.

“Joe Natoli’s claim that ratepayers would pay an extra $105 million a year to transport waste to Ipswich if the Kulangoor dump did not go ahead is wildly exaggerated,” Mr Sheen said.

Mr Natoli said he made a mistake during the interview but residents would still be slugged with higher rates if work on the dump stopped.

He said trucking waste to Ipswich would cost ratepayers an extra $150 each year and create an unacceptable amount of greenhouse gas emissions.

He said the Coast needed landfill and Mr Abbot’s plan to get rid of dumps was not achievable without a sharp increase in rates.

“He is going to impose increased costs on every ratepayer and he needs to tell people just how much it’s going to cost,” Mr Natoli said.

Mr Abbot said he did not know how much it would cost but his goals were achievable.

“I know it’s done elsewhere and we will find the right way to do it,” Mr Abbot said.

“If we’re going to start throwing around figures with regards to waste, it would be good to see the information Maroochy Shire Council based the Kulangoor decision on.”

Mr Natoli said he had invited Mr Abbot to a technical briefing last year but Mr Abbot did not accept the invitation. Mr Abbot said he did not recall the invitation and could not remember what he had been doing at the time of the briefing.

For our election coverage and candidates nominating for council, visit our election '08 page.

Recent Comments

Add a comment
on 3 March, 2008 at 7:04 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Landfill is the disposal problem for the globe and we in the Sunshine Coast are enduring opposing views of garbage disposal of two blokes who are seeking selection to manage such rubbish.

We should be looking for attributes of these candidates who will serve us as our representative, and manage the council in the interests of all who reside in the region.

Garbage disposal, like all waste management system, is evolving as science generates better methods of disposal. The council will have engineers and other specialists to advise and recommend our needs. We need representatives, councillor and mayor who have the nous to select the best system to suit our budget now and in the future.

So, look beyond the pile of rubbish promoted any one interest group pushing their man to protect their interests.

We need a leader that will best serve the region and that is not just the northern sector.
on 3 March, 2008 at 8:13 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
I would be happy to pay more in rates if it meant we could minimise waste production and eliminate the need for landfills- I was sitting next to a couple of current MSC councillors (Rogerson and Dunne) in a recent meeting, and both of them scoffed at the idea of a zero waste policy.

Maroochy Shire has NO published timeframes or hard targets for reducing waste to landfills- go look at their website if you have any doubts - it is a breath of fresh air to see Bob Abbot is open minded about alternative waste mangement, and he is right- it can be done.

If we keep going the way of the Maroochy Shire Council, there will be a landfill near EVERYONE'S backyard- I live at Kulangoor and there are landfills (old or current) at Buderim, Bli Bli, Woombye, Coolum- in a hundred years time you might be hard pressed to find a town that DOESN'T have a landfill!!

It's time for a change of leadership!
on 3 March, 2008 at 8:34 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
My personal best option is to use the Quarry next to the existing dump at Nambour which we approved in 2000 for a waste facility, Council can resume the site if the owners don't want to sell, continue to quarry the rock as Council has a Quarry licence & used the escavated area for their dump.

Regarding Mayor Natoli's problem with trucking waste to Swanbank, what's wrong with using rail to ship the waste.

Trevor Thompson
Yandina
on 3 March, 2008 at 8:44 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
ps- before i get shouted down as a "whining NIMBY" (Not In My Back Yard)- theses were the words of one of the MSC councillors- go do a Google search on "Zero Waste"- the first hit i got was

www.zerowaste.sa.gov.au

the second

www.zerowastewa.com.au

Examples of forward thinking- this is what we need- not locking ouselves into outdated Bioreactors that NEED massive quantities of organic matter to keep them running for the next 30 years- we should be setting targets for reducing the amount of waste to landfill, not encouragment to keep things as they are.
on 3 March, 2008 at 10:13 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Am I correct in saying we have people here on the coast who want to take little responsibility for the waste we produce by trucking it off to someone elses backyard so we can say how enviromentally friendly we are?

We produce it, we dispose of it.

I am amazed the only answer a candidate can come up with is "dump it anywhere but here!" Using this logic Ipswich may say we don't want to treat sewerage anymore, so lets truck it to the Sunshine Coast as they seem to have more mud rakers than us.
on 3 March, 2008 at 10:39 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Now that Joe has admitted that he 'made a mistake' (twice) by saying that it would cost an extra $150M to ship waste to Ipswich, it raises the question where did this figure come from and also importantly where did the figure of an "extra cost to ratepayers of $150pa" come from, or this another mistake?

The community also needs a resource recovery solution which MINIMISES WASTE TO LANDFILL and negates the need for a new dumps.

This view is also supported by the Minister for Sustainability, Climate Change and Innovation, the Hon Andrew McNamara, when KADAG met with him last week, as well as 20 candidates from all Divisions on the Coast.

There is a clear choice between candidates who support KADAG's view, are open to new ideas and are prepared to investigate modern alternatives as opposed to those who prefer to use scare tactics and secrecy.

For more details check this link
http://www.bioreactor.org.au/News31.htm

Peter Sheen
President KADAG Inc
on 3 March, 2008 at 10:40 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
We are with Trevor Thompson all the way, use the quarry next to the existing dump along with radical recycling and reuse and education to reduce the waste to landfill dramatically.

As they quarry, they fill at a dramatically reduced rate to the existing and proposed Kulangoor one...and what would be the problem with quarrying and stockpiling the rock if necessary??

We have never been given the opportunity to see the figures and business plans involved in any of the discussed options/proposals, and the Maroochy ratepayer has not been given the opportunity to choose environmental responsibility against ongoing landfill.

Joe and co have just made the decision for us, why weren't the community given the opportunity to debate and decide landfill cost vs. user pays and radical recycling/reuse options??

Let it be the same as water consumption, if you aren't prepared to recycle dramatically then pay the cost of disposing of your rubbish.

It's not a case of dump it anywhere but here, but be responsible, forward thinking and give the community the opportunity to be both.
on 3 March, 2008 at 10:41 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
What Joe avoids is the additional cost to ratepayers for the proposed Kulangoor Dump. Maroocchy have indicated an initial cost of $23.5 million for construction - That's just construction cost, that has to be paid back, plus almost 50% higher operating costs. So residents must expect to see an additional $50-70 per year on their wheely bin levy to recover the cost of Joe's folly.
I am sure ratepayers would prefer to see that money put to developing a truly responsible resource recovery strategy
on 3 March, 2008 at 10:42 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
jboast i think you need to look at the bigger picture here please

looking locally can somtimes be like looking at a tree, and not seeing the forest

looking at waste management from a regional, or even a state wide perspective may in the long run be more enviromentally aware than deciding to dig a hole in your backyard and burying your garbage

to me finding an old quarry site eg Rinker, or even Ipswich, makes more sense than filling a fertile valley with garbage- i don't think thats looking very far ahead at all.

I think we should be looking 100 years into the future- what do you think our descendants will say if we continue to pepper our landscape, and fertile ground with landfills every 10 kilometres?

I am all for acting responsibly- and no, sending it to Ipswich is not the only alternative on offer- there are others. If some cost more, but are better for the environment then i so go for it, and hang the expense.
on 3 March, 2008 at 11:19 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Perhaps jboast may like to check our website www.bioreactor.org.au to get a clear understanding of KADAG's position and the views espoused by the candidates.

We dont need to dump our rubbish in Ipswich or anywhere else if we have a solution which minimises waste to landfill by modern resource recovery solutions. In fact we dont need any new dumps period.
on 3 March, 2008 at 12:55 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Thanks "kulangoor" and "piere54". I did read the web site and in particular Allan Jay's presentation.

Not being a waste disposal expert I cannot but take on board those suggestions and results of research presented on the web site and related links.

I also note the reference to the upcoming elections and the result of your survey of the candidates. I did a search on councils web site of meetings and the last reference I found to Kulangoor Bioreactor was 23rd May 2007 at which time a motion to look at the Ferntree Bioreactor in relation to Kulangoor was lost with only Cr's McKay, Tatton & Dunne voting for.

On 13th Sept 2006 there is also a unanimous decision to thank all those involved in the selection of the site, etc. I find it interesting that some of those people now appear on your survey as against the project!

As one who does recycle (yellow bin full every week, green bin 1 bag each week) I will happily support any proposal where we handle our waste within our region to the benefit of the entire state.
on 3 March, 2008 at 1:13 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
yes it is a tad amusing to see a few sitting coucillors are now doing backflips- is there an election coming up?
on 3 March, 2008 at 2:19 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Finally some proper third tier of gov issues [ahh rubbish]

could the sub/ed leave the clever stuff to the commentariatte [machiatomachiavellis as there called north of the junction]

Be lateral fellas and solve another pressing local issue put the rubbish in the potholes.
on 3 March, 2008 at 5:33 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
I think the KADAG committee have to be thanked and congratulated for putting together such comprehensive and compelling information about the reality of the proposed bioreactor, both on the website and at meetings. It is their dedication to seeing a true waste resource strategy implemented that has opened the eyes and ears of so many people, including councillors, both prospective and sitting, and made them aware of the better solutions available, and the travesty the Kulangoor dump would be were it to go ahead. Let's see MSC open the books for scrutiny to really see how the bioreactor proposal doesn't stack up dollar wise.
on 3 March, 2008 at 5:54 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
I cannot believe the attitude and naievity of Natoli, he is convinced that because he knows nothing about alternate ways to dispose of rubbish, the alternate ideas shared by Big Bob must be wrong. It is also interesting to note that those who say Bob will only look after Noosa must be in the Natoli camp especially with Bobs obvious interest in the good folk of Kullangoor not having to live on a dumps doorstep.
As an indication I live in the Caloundra area and we have a landfill site which is heavily biased towards maximum recycling and being environmentily based not a stinking mess like the Maroochy shire sites at Buderim and Nambour.
For me its Big Bob all the way.
on 3 March, 2008 at 8:23 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
I have many years experience in waste management planning. The Maroochy Council did not ever present such a plan to justify why Kullangoor was needed, what capacity it will eventually take; let alone what its expected life will be. As well it did not do this within an integrated way in terms of justifying its location, transport costs, transfer station distances etc. Who knows how recycling will be managed? We do not have a green waste collection, household hazardous waste collection service; nor even a annual clean up service. Maroochy Shire's waste management planning appears to be non existent and lacks transparency.
on 3 March, 2008 at 9:32 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Hello 'ontrack from twin waters', perhaps your knowledge and expertise in waste management could help KADAG?
on 4 March, 2008 at 7:23 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Thanks Kulangoor I will check out their website. The lack of community consultation is appalling. Did this ever go to open tender? If not why not?
on 4 March, 2008 at 9:33 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
no- no open tender

why not?- we keep asking that!
on 5 March, 2008 at 8:18 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Your comments are spot on ontrack and as an ex-Council officer in the Environmental Management & Conservation Branch I'd back your comments 100%... that was certainly the case until I resigned over 3 years ago and I have no reason to believe anything has changed since.

I've spoken to many local people and the lack of an annual clean-up service is certainly an issue in Division 8, one that I intend to change.

Waste management planning needs to be reviewed on a regional basis and I'm convinced, after that review, that the Kulangoor dump will be confirmed as NOT the way to go!

And another quick comment: Even if Joe's figures are accurate (and I doubt they are), I believe the social and environmental cost of the Kulangoor dump far outweighs the costs for alternative solutions.

Jeff Watson.
Candidate for Division 8
www.jeffwatson.com.au
"Power to the People"
on 12 March, 2008 at 4:56 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
It was my understanding that the Council was elected to represent the Rate Payers and as a Rate Payer in the Maroochy Shire Council, I do not consider that the Maroochy Shire Council acted in the best interests of the residents who live within
a 5 k radius of the proposed Bioreactor. The decision was made, without community consultation, and much of what has gone on since their decision to choose The Ferntree Creek site has gone on behind closed doors. As Bob Abbot has promised to represent the Rate Payers with open and accountable government and allow all of the facts and figures to be put out there IN THE COMMUNITY in relation to the bioreactor andalternative sites, my vote certainly goes with Bob Abbott on Saturday.

Have your say

We welcome comments on our stories and blogs - after all it's your site. Please note comments should be on-topic and not abusive. Comments are checked before publication.