Page 4082 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 20 September 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
resulted in a resource recovery rate of over 70 per cent in 2008-09, a major increase from 42 per cent in 1995-96.
While the ACT achieves the highest rate of resource recovery in the country, more can be done, and achieving further reductions in waste to landfill remains a key priority. Last year the government released its draft sustainable waste strategy, which is now very close to finalisation. The strategy will set the ACT on a path to further waste reduction and ensure that we remain leaders in this key aspect of sustainability, with targets to achieve over 90 per cent resource recovery.
This is just a brief summary of some of the measures being undertaken by the government. I have not mentioned transport or energy efficiency in buildings to any significant degree, but these also remain key elements of the government’s strategies to achieve a more sustainable city.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (3.48): I welcome the opportunity to speak about this issue today. When we hear the Greens talk about the ecological footprint we need to consider the Greens’ position on it, not the actual issue itself. When it comes to the Greens’ position on the ecological footprint, it is not just about saying, “We need to be sustainable and we need to look after the environment.” There is a distinct antidevelopment agenda at work here, and we have seen that in recent times.
The Greens have managed to take a city, Canberra—I think a city that is objectively better than virtually any other city in Australia in terms of open space, although that has not been as good in recent years. Overall in Canberra, allowing for the amount of open space we have and the amount of green space we have, we do better than most. The Greens are not satisfied with that. We see that in relation to the arguments around Throsby that have been raised recently in this place. I want to address those.
It is one thing to be in favour of ecologically sustainable development; it is another thing to be completely against any type of development that could impact on the environment. That is where the Greens seem to be tending when it comes to Throsby. It is not my words that say this; it is the Greens’ spokesman’s own words. The last time we were in this place looking at the issue of Throsby, we had this situation where Mr Rattenbury set out the position. The position was this:
Throsby is the perfect case in point of the kind of area for which we should perhaps just put aside all notion of development.
The Greens’ view is that Throsby may well be a complete no-go zone. This is the real danger we face with the position the Greens are going to—the position that they are being encouraged to go to by the Labor Party, and that they are being supported in by the Labor Party.
Throsby should not be a development like Fraser. I am prepared to say, on behalf of the Canberra Liberals, that we believe that houses should be developed in Throsby and we believe a Catholic high school should be developed in Throsby. Will this be done taking into account the environment? Of course it will. It always is. Has it been
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video