Page 2323 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 29 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
and additional waste pickups; opposition members believe that we must look at the sorts of strategies that were addressed today by the Greens.
We want to minimise the attendance at general landfill and encourage more recycle drop-offs. It is necessary for the government to reduce its reliance on revenue from tip fees but, at the same time, we must deter consumers from dumping everything just because they can. We will be seeking to reinvigorate and recommit to a no waste strategy. I want to refer to some of the issues in the Greens’ motion, which I think is a reasonable framework from which to plan. As I said earlier, the target dates in paragraphs (1) and (2) are not possible, although I agree with that part of paragraph (2) that states “develop targets by the end of 2007”.
It is encouraging that the minister said he will now go beyond the end of the current 2007 government strategy, and that the government will introduce a new 2008-2011 strategy. Clearly, developing strategies by the end of this year will sit well with that objective. If the government is fair dinkum we would support that. Paragraph 3 (a) of Dr Foskey’s motion states:
(a) siting recycling bins beside all landfill rubbish bins in town centres …
The implementation of that proposal would be at a significant cost but the opposition does not rule out analysing that possibility to establish a cost-benefit analysis. We must all take bold steps, produce landfill strategies and move to a no waste objective. However, as I said earlier, there will be a cost but we must analyse that cost and weigh it against the benefits. Paragraph (3) (b) of Dr Foskey’s motion states:
(b) a scheme for the safe disposal of fluorescent and compact fluorescent light bulbs …
That is an important point but it will be interesting to see how it can be achieved. People might have to be asked to dump those sorts of things in prescribed areas. I will not flag it as a policy point but I believe that someone should look at the feasibility of encouraging residents to drop fluorescent light bulbs and disposed of batteries at publicised collection points, at fuel stations, at Bunnings, outside supermarkets and those types of places. Collection points should be publicised and people should be encouraged to drop those things into discrete bins.
The minister said earlier that there is evidence to show that alkaline batteries do not create a problem in landfill. I note that he referred today to EPA recommendations to that effect, but the opposition is still very concerned and does not necessarily agree with that finding. At this point why do we not simply dump batteries discretely and in two, three or four years time find other ways and means of disposing of them? We generally agree with the direction of the Greens’ motion but we think that the timeframe should be adjusted. (Time expired.)
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (12.26): It is necessary for me to respond to Mr Hargreaves’s speech and to his amendment. Firstly, this motion was put on the notice paper, which is the normal way that things are done in this Assembly and it was available at lunchtime yesterday. That motion and all the other motions that we have been discussing today would have been dealt with had there not been a calling on of executive business, which I assume will succeed.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .