Page 583 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 22 February 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
clearly read the financial analysis and they have clearly read the greenhouse gas analysis and they understand that it is not as good as it first seems.
But let me address Ms Le Couteur’s point about the relative benefits of education. The first point to make about that is that the assumption in Hyder is that there is an extremely high-level take-up improvement in household recycling in the home—that is, composting in the home—as a result of an education program. The assumptions are that in year 1 there will be a 20 per cent reduction in food going to waste, going to the rubbish bin. In year 2 there is an assumption there will be a further 30 per cent reduction. In year 3 there is an assumption it is going to be a 35 per cent reduction and in year 4 there is an assumption it is going to be a 40 per cent reduction. So there is an assumption that you are going to achieve somewhere in the order of a 60 per cent reduction in the amount of organics going into the household rubbish bin.
We are sorry but we just do not think that is realistic. We just do not think that is a realistic assumption. It is a very aggressive assumption. But even on those very aggressive figures, we are not getting the best outcome for the community. So we disagree with the Greens on that point.
But more importantly, I am surprised that the Greens are not taking the long-term view when it comes to the relative greenhouse gas emissions benefits of the different options. Ms Le Couteur says, “The education scenario is the best scenario in terms of greenhouse gas emissions in the year 2021.” Yes, it is, but she does not mention the year 2035. In 2035 the best greenhouse gas emissions reduction outcome is through a residual waste MRF. In 2035 total greenhouse gas emissions minus greenhouse gas benefits is negative 52,000 tonnes. That is the best outcome. Compare that with education, which is only negative 38,000 tonnes, and a third bin, which is only negative 16,000 tonnes.
Ms Le Couteur often berates this government. She says it is not taking the long-term view on greenhouse gas emissions reduction and putting in place long-term strategies. There is your long-term strategy. The residual waste MRF is the most beneficial in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, not the education scenario, not the third-bin scenario, certainly not the garden waste collection and certainly not business as usual.
Those are the facts. That is why this government’s policy is a robust one and a correct one. With what we are proposing in terms of reducing the amount of organic waste going to landfill, our option—and that is food waste we are talking about here; we are talking about food waste, including wet waste such as meat products which, of course, cannot be composted easily at home; and many people are reluctant to do so, although I know some do—delivers the highest amount of yield in terms of diverting waste from landfill through a residual MRF and it does so at the best, realistic and achievable cost. It is less than half the cost of implementing a third bin and it collects over double the amount of organic waste that a third bin would collect. So that is why the government’s waste strategy is the correct one, and we have backed it up with detailed assessments.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video