Page 575 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 22 February 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
system in the ACT, as well as having a range of other issues associated with it, particularly from a public health and public safety perspective.
The government has given substantial consideration to an organic collection bin and the evidence shows that it simply will not address the issue of diverting organic waste from landfill in any substantial way. It will not reduce greenhouse gas emissions nor will it improve recovery rates beyond those that can be achieved through alternative options. It fails the fundamental test that the Greens’ motion does not address—achieving value for money for the community’s existing investment in waste management.
In light of the evidence, and in the interests of the environment and our community, it is time to move beyond simplistic and costly third bin proposals to an efficient, effective and sustainable waste management system for the ACT. I have circulated amendments in my name which address the issues of concern from my perspective in Ms Le Couteur’s motion. I now seek leave to move the amendments circulated in my name together.
Leave granted.
MR CORBELL: I move:
(1) Omit subparagraph (1)(c), substitute:
“(c) the ACT Labor Government waste management strategy has resulted in the ACT having the highest recycling recovery rate in the country at more than 70%;”.
(2) Omit subparagraph (1)(f), substitute:
“(f) the Hyder report states that an education program:
(i) as an effective means to reduce waste to landfill was untested in Australia;
(ii) even on the ‘aggressive’ numbers provided would reduce the total waste to landfill by less than 10%;
(iii) should be part of the waste management strategy, but is not enough on its own to substantially increase recovery rates; and
(iv) cannot replace a residual waste Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) which would allow large scale recovery and diversion of a further 53 000 tonnes a year of waste from landfill by 2021;”.
(3) Omit subparagraphs (1)(g) and (h), substitute:
“(g) source separation can result in high quality recovery of organic material, but has been proved to be ineffective to achieve high rates of recovery:
(i) the ACT already achieves organic garden waste recovery at more than 90%, which produces high quality, high value, compost material and will continue to do so;
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video