Page 3844 - Week 13 - Thursday, 18 October 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
attempt to establish something new which might have been attempted elsewhere, very successfully, or perhaps with less success, in which case we ought to avoid it.
I do not accept the first three recommendations of the committee because I see a number of problems with that idea simpliciter. First of all, it is clear to me that door-to-door recycling, particularly on a weekly basis, is extremely expensive. I might note that the evidence facing us was that there were very few communities in this country that had door-to-door collections at that frequency. The cost, according to the Government response, is somewhere between $650,000 and $1m per annum, to be offset by a saving of only some $50,000 per annum from the new arrangements. That is hardly a major incentive. There are also, of course, considerable environmental costs in having such door-to-door collections occurring. A weekly collection effectively means doubling the number of large trucks travelling our roads every week in the Territory to collect recyclable rubbish and that, of course, has a certain environmental impact. I do not think I need to spell that out.
There is also a very large question of just how effective such collections would be. We heard that recycling was successful in varying degrees, according to particular areas, or particular communities. It ranged from something like, I think, 80 per cent in areas like Forrest to something like less than 25 per cent in certain areas of Tuggeranong. I am sure that level of success is very much a feature of the frequency of collections, but it is also a feature of other things. We have to assess just how much we can bring the community into understanding and taking part in new recycling arrangements, particularly if we do not think through very carefully beforehand just how that whole scheme is to be structured, how we will advertise it, and how we will educate people about the use of it.
As I have said, I think we should look at lateral or technological solutions. I have a particular view that we should be exploring. I personally believe that there is some value in thinking about an American system of split big bins, where people are encouraged to recycle and dispose of waste products at the same time, in the same action.
Mr Stevenson: It is worth looking at.
MR HUMPHRIES: I think the benefits of that are very substantial, and I appreciate Mr Stevenson's comment. I think it is worth looking at, at least. I am pleased to note that the Government's response does, in fact, say that we will be doing just that. I cannot guarantee that that sort of thing will be a solution, but it certainly holds some hope of finding a solution.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .