Page 3504 - Week 08 - Thursday, 23 August 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The first point to be made is that we hear the critique from Mr Seselja about how he believes, wrongly, that environmental outcomes are going backwards under the Labor-Greens agreement. These comments demonstrate a gross failure to read and understand the context in which the environment commissioner’s reports are prepared. They necessarily look backwards at results that are achieved often a couple of years behind where we are now. As a result, the commissioner makes recommendations on data sets that do not capture the most contemporary outcomes in terms of environment protection or improvements in sustainability.
It is the case that, as our city continues to grow, issues around consumption and issues around land use and waste are some of the most difficult issues for the city to face. But it has been this Labor government that has put in place a range of measures to tackle these challenges.
The first and most obvious response is in relation to waste. Waste policy now has a comprehensive framework for delivering further improvements in resource recovery. We have identified that the next steps that need to be taken in terms of resource recovery are reducing the amount of organic waste going to landfill. I was interested in Mr Seselja’s assertion that the Liberal Party will adopt measures that are cost efficient and achieve practical outcomes. Well, if that is his position, I look forward to the Liberals confirming their abandonment of the third green bin policy, because they would know, if they had read the regulatory impact assessment on different options for capturing organic waste, that a third bin is more expensive and captures less organic waste than the alternative that has been adopted by the government—that is a materials recovery facility for organic waste. That captures twice the amount of organic waste as a third bin and at less cost.
So if the Liberals’ position truly is that they are interested in practical measures that are cost efficient and achieve the greatest gain, then I look forward to them abandoning their previous policy positions that have supported the implementation of a green bin. They should know that the regulatory impact assessments and the cost-benefit analyses undertaken by this government confirm that such a policy is expensive and not as efficient as alternatives.
Of course, Mr Seselja in his critique of Labor and the Greens provides no policy alternative. Indeed the overwhelming theme of Mr Seselja as the shadow minister for the environment has been to oppose every measure brought to this place to try and improve sustainability and environmental outcomes. He has opposed legislation that provides for energy efficiency in households. He has opposed legislation that will delivery energy savings in households and an average saving on household electricity bills of over $300 a year. That is his record as a shadow environment minister—opposing measures that will cut greenhouse gas emissions by over three-quarters of a million tonnes and save households $300 a year off their electricity bills. He and his colleagues have opposed those measures. He has opposed legislation that establishes Canberra as a leading adopter of renewable energy, even though his party went to the last election with a commitment to build a large-scale solar farm for the ACT. He says one thing at the election and then he does a complete U-turn when he comes into this place and becomes the shadow minister for the environment.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video