Page 580 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 22 February 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
You can have it one way or the other, Mr Corbell. We either can do it or we cannot do it. And that is really unclear.
He has actually said that waste from the dirty MRF will produce safe and valuable compost. Unfortunately, that is not what the Hyder report says. The Hyder report says that we will end up with glass shards. I am sorry that I have to zip through this but we were not given this in enough time to prepare a better response. Page 60 of the Hyder report says:
Less certain are the markets for mixed composted MSW (municipal waste) and biochar—organic products derived from mixed MSW are currently being used for mine rehabilitation in some locations, although the demand appears limited the material is understood to be sold at a loss, to mine operators.
The biggest problem—is it the biggest? One of the major problems with the dirty MRF is that what we get out of it is just not something which people want. It is not something which will actually improve the soils of Australia.
He goes on in paragraph (4) to note:
… Hyder concluded that the MRF was the best environmental choice …
That, of course, is not what Hyder concluded. If Mr Corbell looks at table 43 on page 70, he will find that Hyder has different results to 2021 and to 2030. And if you go to 2021, which I feel would be a better basis of comparison because it is much more certain, and look at the total greenhouse gas emissions, GHG, of recycling, it clearly comes out that education is the winner to 2021. I agree that to 2035 the dirty MRF is the better one. But as I said, it is much clearer what is happening in 10 years time, and I think that the education modelling is not ambitious enough. Mr Corbell notes:
… that the education scenario and the MRF were not mutually exclusive …
I totally agree with that. I believe that the education scenario needs to be done first, and that is what the Greens’ motion says. That is why I am really surprised that the government, given what Mr Corbell has said and given some of the things in his motion, is not supporting at least my call in (2)(a) to commence an education program along the lines indicated in the Hyder report. Given this, I can only assume that the government does not intend to have a serious education program. It intends to just continue with the very small and unambitious things that it is doing at present. I can only assume that what he is actually saying is that if we have a real education program, an ambitious education program, what we will find is that the dirty MRF is financially irrelevant. It financially does not stack up, because we will divert so much away from the waste stream and the landfill that there will not be a need for the dirty MRF.
I am really glad that Mr Corbell is suggesting:
… that the Government’s waste strategy supports both education and new cost efficient and effective waste infrastructure …
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video