Page 582 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 22 February 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development) (11.29): Perhaps I should not be surprised but I am surprised that the party opposite—and they seek to claim again and again that they are concerned about the cost of living impacts and increases in rates that are flowing, they assert, to Canberra households and that they undertake steps to reduce costs to Canberra households—are insisting upon a solution for organic waste that will cost ACT taxpayers $20 million per annum by the year 2021 to collect not even half of the organic waste that is currently going to landfill. Compare that with the other options that are in the Hyder report. Clearly Mr Coe has not read the Hyder report. If he had read the Hyder report, he would know that there are cheaper options that recycle more waste. So why would the Liberal Party insist on an option that is more expensive and recycles less waste? Let us make the comparison. At the very least, the Greens understand what the financial analysis shows. Clearly Mr Coe does not.
Let us go to the waste strategy. Hyder Consulting estimated the net costs to the territory of establishing an organic waste collection system—that is, a third bin—at $20 million per annum by the year 2021. These net costs consist of new bins and their collection, a facility to receive the third-bin material, remove contaminants and compost it, minus the savings associated with less material going to landfill. This indicates that a third-bin service for organic waste collection is a relatively expensive way to address household food waste which would not divert even half of the current amount of organic waste going to landfill.
In comparison, a material recovery facility for residual waste from households could recover nearly all—not just 55 per cent or 60 per cent but over 90 per cent—of all organic waste currently going to landfill. It could be collected through a materials recovery facility. It would also recover those current recyclables that are ending up in the current general household rubbish bin—plastics, glass, aluminium. We know these items are going into the general household rubbish bin, despite the very good recycling rates of Canberrans. So we would be able to capture those as well through a materials recovery facility. And those dry recyclables are about 15 per cent of the total in that waste stream. What is the cost of this alternative? The cost is only $8.4 million per annum by the year 2021.
So there is the choice. You can have a third bin, which is going to cost $20 million per annum in the year 2021 and it is not even going to capture 50 per cent of the organic waste stream that is currently going to landfill, or you can have a materials recovery facility that costs only $8½ million per annum, less than half of the organic waste bin cost, and it collects over 90 per cent of the organics plus it collects more dry recyclables that we are currently missing. So why are the Liberals proposing to impose this cost on households when it is less cost efficient and does not even capture the same amount of waste as alternatives?
Let me turn to the Greens’ position on this matter. At the very least, the Greens understand now that organic waste collection is more expensive and collects less rubbish. And I note that the Greens now are walking away and distancing themselves from their previous position that supported a third bin. At the very least, they have
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video