Page 644 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 21 March 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The 65 recommendations come under four headings, the first of which is "Recycling". I draw the attention of members to No. 1 and, an attendant and logically following recommendation, No. 2. No. 1 states:
... the ACT Government contract for a weekly door-to-door collection of recyclables, including glass, PET -
which is a form of plastic bottle -
aluminium, paper and cardboard ...
Related to that is No. 2 which states:
... householders be provided with appropriate containers to be used for the collection of recyclables ...
That section on recycling also deals with design of recycling facilities at landfill sites, the utility of photobiodegradable plastic shopping bags, the avoidance of plastic containers and wrappings, waste oil collection, newsprint and waste paper, tyres and many other related matters.
Then comes the section "Options for Efficient Collection of Domestic Waste", which includes alternative methods of collecting domestic waste. I will say more on that in a moment. Another important section is "Options for Efficient Collection of Commercial Wastes", which is about the largest component of waste disposal at tips. Then comes "Litter and Waste Minimisation", including the controversial matter of what to do about the disastrous littering at major public events. It was a pleasure to note the other day that we seem to have had less trouble this year at the Food and Wine Frolic than in earlier years. Finally, after the recommendations about "Public Education" are 14 recommendations related to "Landfill and other Waste Management Practices". In this section we make proposals about the future management of tips.
I now return briefly to the proposed alternative method of collecting domestic waste by using a one-person collection system in conjunction with big bins. This is fully analysed in the report in recommendations 28 to 34. My colleague Mr Stefaniak will specifically be addressing that matter, including the possible use of 240-litre bins.
My other colleague Bill Wood argues at page 88 that the recommendation to introduce 240-litre bins can be seen as potentially anti-recycling, and I do not doubt that he will speak to that. If that were to be the case, however, the other members of the original and the present committees might agree with him that the introduction of 240-litre big bins would be inappropriate. Indeed, several of the various political groupings in this Assembly, on both sides of the house, have raised doubts about 240-litre bins. I
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .