Page 3380 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 20 August 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
A critically important element in this process will be the government’s ability to take the community forward as part of the development of coherent, cost-effective and timely policies and strategies. In this respect, I suspect we are all on the same page of recycled paper.
As mentioned earlier, it would be inappropriate for the government to make any formal statement at this time in relation to the specific waste recommendations in the State of the environment report, as is proposed in the motion by Dr Foskey. Therefore, the government will be opposing the motion. I think, in fact, that given the debate on the State of the environment report was adjourned, it would be ruled out of order if we started commenting on it.
I want to raise a couple of other small things. Dr Foskey’s motion actually calls on us to do things we are already doing. It calls on us to develop a zero waste education facility. Mr Assistant Speaker, I think you may have visited the Mugga recycling facility—MURF—with the planning and environment committee. What do we have in the MURF? We have an education facility. What part of “education facility” do people with such significant tertiary qualifications not understand?
One of the concerns that we have is that this is so typically Greens’ stuff. They say, “We have got these really good ideas and you guys are going to pinch them.” That is not the case. We will adopt a good idea irrespective of who comes up with it. We will do this when we have considered its cost effectiveness, whether it is going to work and whether it is going to be embraced by the community. We will not do it based on the mad ramblings of a bunch of banshees who have this mantra that they run up the flagpole saying, “We need more of this and more of that and more of something else.” They can say that, Mr Assistant Speaker, because as long as their backsides point to the ground, they will never be in a governmental position to be able to anything about it.
This motion calls upon us to spend heaps. It calls on us to establish an ACT waste consortium. That comes free, doesn’t it? We are talking about a green waste kerbside collection service. We have a lack of faith expressed in the trashpack industry, but they are going great guns. But this would cost us. It would cost $40 per household on top of the rates to deliver. We will have to think about it.
The motion calls on us to institute a regular collection of large household items to promote reuse. Who is going to pay for it? Here is a good one. It calls on us to increase the fines for illegally dumping chemicals and other waste in the wastewater and stormwater systems. We might think about that, because increasing the penalties is a good idea. They want us to have more trained inspectors. Where is the money going to come from?
There are a number of things this motion wants the government to do. Members of the opposition are saying that they are going to support Dr Foskey’s motion. Let us hope that they give it some consideration. I make this point for the attention of the number crunchers upstairs who are putting numbers into the spendometer. The spendometer will reveal all of this extra cost. Where is all this extra cost going to come from? We might stop the prison; that is what we might do.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .