Toowoomba Regional Council rejects bulk kerbside collection trial after councillors involved in heated debate

Toowoomba residents are highly unlikely to have bulk kerbside collection, after the councillors voted it down at a meeting. But the matter caused a massive spat within the council.

Councillor Carol Taylor spoke passionately against the introduction of a bulk kerbside collection trial.

A proposed bulk kerbside collection trial in Toowoomba has been scrapped amid a heated debate between the councillors that threatened to derail the meeting.

The $500,000 trial, which would’ve been carried out on a user-pay basis across four suburbs, was voted down 6-4 during committee meetings on Tuesday in line with waste services manager Matt Torr’s recommendation.

It came two months after a speech by Councillor Kerry Shine sensationally put the trial back on the table following a prior rebuke from the council.

But the latest meeting hit a major snag after Councillor Carol Taylor objected to Mr Shine’s multiple questions aimed at Mr Torr, which she described as an “interrogation”.

“We’ve got an interrogation of an officer here — I’m happy for questions to be answered, but that was an interrogation, not questions,” Ms Taylor said.

Mr Shine appeared to make a snarky response to the comment, saying “coming from you”.

Water and waste chair Rebecca Vonhoff said she didn’t believe the number of questions constituted an interrogation and allowed further inquiries.

When it arrived back to Ms Taylor, who had already moved the officer’s recommendation to reject the trial, launched into her support of the motion before she was cut off by Ms Vonhoff again.

“Once you have a motion, you must go to debate — I have moved a motion, I have a seconder and I wish to speak to it,” Ms Taylor said before referring to advice from CEO Brian Pidgeon.

Mr Torr’s latest report revealed he had spoken with six other similarly-sized councils with bulk kerbside services, the majority of which sent the collected waste straight to landfill.

Inquiries also revealed scavenging was an issue for most of the councils.

He also added that several councils had tried to remove the service, only to be met with serious pushback from residents.

Mr Torr reiterated just two per cent of people surveyed about the concept would be willing to pay the $116 required to make the service cost-neutral, while a quarter surveyed would not want to pay anything.

Issues were also raised by councillor’s about the service’s potential to divert waste from landfill, which is a key priority in the council’s new waste management strategy.

Speaking for the motion to reject, Councillor Nancy Sommerfield pointed out the cost of operating the service at no cost would be the equivalent of a 1.5 per cent rate increase.

“This is a serious issue that’s going to impact councils not just for this term but terms for eternity, because we know now how hard it is to remove it,” she said.

Councillor Megan O’Hara Sullivan said the concept clearly had community support.

“I don’t understand why we wouldn’t do it when there is a strong public sentiment,” she said.

“The community tells us they want it and they want diversion from landfill, which we can do, and we can do it at $116 per household.”

Ultimately, Ms Vonhoff and colleague Councillor Tim McMahon switched their support for the trial from the previous motion in May.

Mayor Paul Antonio was absent from the meeting.