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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 6 Hansard (14 June) . . Page.. 1758 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

If a business opts to reuse items, many existing food premises would have major kitchen floor space constraints if they are required to install new sinks and new dishwashers. You only have to look at some of the small restaurants and cafes around at the moment. Even if they did have the space, the cost of industrial style equipment, along with its installation, is likely to be significant. The loss of space might impact on the ability of the business to keep the premises clean and tidy, which would result in providing harborage for vermin and food poisoning organisms. There are significant problems, and we have not had a business impact assessment of this well-intentioned but, unfortunately, poorly delivered piece of legislation.

If the business opts to recycle, BFI Canberra, Canberra's major recycler, are only capable of recycling a limited range of materials. Most food grade containers do not fall within that range. The company has indicated that any food contamination of recycled materials would render those materials unusable and they would have to be transferred to landfill. Once again, it is well intentioned, but the delivery is unlikely to work. The national food safety standards require used dishes, crockery and cutlery to be washed and then sanitised using chemical sanitisers and very hot water. Significant hygiene problems can arise, of course, if that requirement is not met.

There will be a significant cost to government in the enforcement of this legislation. Environmental health officers will have to spend a large amount of time ensuring that food businesses have upgraded their facilities in order to reuse crockery and cutlery in a hygienic manner, and they will have to continue to keep that monitoring process in place. Of course, the increased use of detergents and other chemical sanitisers would then have a detrimental impact on the environment, and one has to wonder at the balance of the damage to the environment. There has been no indication that the impact of that has been assessed.

The Greens have made the judgment: "We'll save the environment by making people reuse or recycle their equipment," and on the face of it that seems sensible. To do it requires the use of significant amounts of detergents and chemical sanitisers, because we have to have these standards in public food. The result of that would be a major impact on our waterways and our environment, so there are challenges there.

The Department of Urban Services Waste Management Unit's development control code for best practice in waste management in the ACT was developed to support the No Waste by 2010 strategy. New food businesses are required to provide details of how they plan to meet the performance-based criteria in the code. So the government is working with the businesses and the community to achieve a proper partnership approach in order to get the best possible outcome. What we hear from the Greens is, "Bugger that. We think there is something about the environment. Let's put aside all those things about consultation and so forth, because we've got a good idea and we're going to push it through." That is how this legislation appears to me.

We get better solutions to issues of health and environment when we have got people working in partnership to develop proper long-term solutions to an important waste problem. That has been identified by the Greens; it is in their bill. I emphasise once again that nobody-I presume-disagrees with the intention of the bill, which is to reduce the amount of non-recyclable material that is there, but it would create a series of major problems.

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