Page 270 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 15 February 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The Greens are calling on the government to commence an education program along the lines indicated in the Hyder report. We support the concept of reusing materials to their highest use and the education program outlined in the Hyder report is the part of that report which really supports this philosophy.
Such a program would include running a food waste avoidance program, noting that in the ACT each of us throws away $641 of food each year, according to an Australia Institute study. This is apparently the third most in Australia, after Queensland and New South Wales. This program could be modelled on the successful New South Wales “love food hate waste” program. I reiterate that avoiding food waste alone could reduce household waste to landfill by a massive 23 per cent each year.
The program would include rolling out education and support for home composting, including targeted provision of compost bins and composting in community gardens and supporting multi-unit developments. I note that our multi-unit code already requires space or other provision for composting in multi-unit developments, so in some developments I am sure that it would be possible to have on-site composting facilities.
The program would include improving our recycling rates at home, at work and in public places. Significant amounts of recyclables are currently being sent to landfill because they are mistakenly put in the residual waste bin. This is an education issue which we can solve. With respect to introducing hazardous waste collection points for light bulbs and batteries, I have been on about that for years. We need to do it. I refer also to avoiding excess packaging, and increasing the reuse of second-hand goods where this is appropriate.
Other jurisdictions around Australia have implemented a broad range of educational activities targeted at different waste streams. Many of these have worth and could easily be replicated. I refer, for example, to the collection of light bulbs, batteries and plastic films. Plastic films can easily be recycled into hard plastic furniture, such as park benches and bollards, as long as there is a system to collect it.
In any case, it just does not make sense not to run an education program, because we know it will reduce our overall waste production and we know it is almost certainly the most cost-effective way to do that. Certainly, the Hyder report sees it as that. Once levels of waste to landfill have been reduced, consideration of further programs and infrastructure should be undertaken for streams of intractable waste.
In this motion I note that it would be best if this education program was contracted out, and therefore not subject to potential annual budget cuts. A contract should ensure funding for a number of years. We do know that unfortunately TAMS is under a lot of budget pressure, but an education program needs time in order to work, and it is not going to work if it is subject to arbitrary budget cuts.
An education approach, particularly if contracted out, will also require regular and comprehensive monitoring to ensure that the investment is translated into waste reduction. We know that an education program is the low-hanging fruit in waste
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video