Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 4 Hansard (7 May) . . Page.. 1081 ..

MS HORODNY (continuing):

various roadmaking materials by the Department of Urban Services and some illegal dumping of household waste. The site is also getting overgrown with weeds. It would be better to rehabilitate this site and incorporate it into the nature park and build a purpose built recycling centre in a more appropriate area in Mitchell.

Mr Speaker, I will be moving an amendment in an attempt to turn this motion into a positive statement for recycling. There may indeed be scope for establishing a transfer station in Mitchell for the collection of waste materials which are too bulky to be included in the household recycling collection system and which can then be transported on to the appropriate recycling facilities. There could also be the co-location of businesses there which can reprocess the waste material on site to produce value-added products. This could be a very valuable job-creating initiative, as there are certainly more local jobs generated in recycling waste than in just dumping it in the ground. A proposal has been put forward by at least one business, Waste Want, for establishing a recycling estate in Mitchell along these lines, but the Government has not been very helpful to them. My amendment will provide a much-needed boost to this initiative. (Quorum formed)

Amendment negatived.

Amendment (by Ms Horodny, by leave) proposed:

Omit "accommodate surplus household waste", substitute "create an expanded waste recycling collection facility and a recycling estate".

MR HIRD (4.38): I will both exercise my right of reply on the motion and speak to Ms Horodny's very sensible amendment. Members may recall that this motion came into this place nearly 14 months ago. In my opening remarks, I outlined the very essence of the amendment Ms Horodny has put before the house this day. The future disposal site in the Mitchell area should be negotiated very carefully, because the existing site is not suitable for the workloads that will need to be undertaken in this facility. I would suggest that the site will be determined following a feasibility study undertaken by consultants with the planning group and the Department of Urban Services. The needs and requirements of the citizens of that area, in particular Gungahlin and North Canberra, should also be sought and considered.

I am delighted that the amendment that was put forward by our colleague Mr Moore was defeated. It proposed going back to a very expensive system that does not fit in with the policies of the Government in respect of waste management. The Government is conscious of its obligations and desires to make our environment more acceptable through the waste management strategies outlined by the Minister three or four months ago to eliminate waste by the year 2010. Waste can be recycled in many ways. I can recall soil erosion causing concern to farmers on rural leases in the Territory and that problem being resolved by recycling soil. I agree with Ms Horodny about recycling. I trust that all members of the chamber support the strategies of this Government to have no waste by the year 2010. I commend the motion and the amendment to the house.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .