Page 271 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 15 February 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
management—like energy efficiency for buildings—and that it can deliver cheap, cost-effective gains. We do not support large government investment in a residual waste MRF at this stage. We believe that it would be far cheaper to follow the education program and continue to assess the results of this on our waste to landfill rates.
We also think it is important to ensure that any contract entered into for rubbish removal this year is compatible with any organic waste collection scheme which may be implemented in the future. If necessary, this could involve simply committing to a short-term extension of the current contract.
We would like the government to then seriously consider whether an organics collection bin system should be invested in across Canberra, or perhaps simply for multi-unit developments and the commercial sector, if there has not been a significant reduction in organic waste to landfill as a result of the education program.
The second Hyder report, which is due later this month, entitled Recycling in high density residential buildings, which looks into high density recycling and organic waste collection systems, will help us to determine the best organic waste collection system to invest in for those types of buildings. As we do not have it, we are not making any specific recommendations for this sector at this stage.
We would also like to see trials of smaller scale composting, including windrow composting, possibly by some of the existing organics companies. This would help the government to understand whether or not we should be committing to large expenditure on any particular technology.
The ACT Greens are, of course, very interested in waste policy. We are interested in it from the point of view of climate change, we are interested in it from the point of view of soil fertility and we are interested in it from the point of view of the best use of finite resources on our finite Earth.
We want a waste policy which helps us to reduce the overall level of waste to landfill, which gives us the highest quality of recovered materials and does not involve us investing in infrastructure which commits us to long-term high levels of waste production. We do not want something that builds in the existing system. We want something which builds in a reduction in waste, not an increase in waste. We want to see a government strategy that backs these points up, and we want to see a government strategy that continues to aim for the long-range, stretched goal of zero waste. That was the ACT’s goal once, and while I appreciate that there is a way to go, I think that, as a long-term, stretched goal, it is still an appropriate goal.
I believe the motion that I have put before the Assembly does these things, and I commend it to the Assembly.
Debate (on motion by Mr Corbell) adjourned to the next sitting.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video