Page 2085 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 5 June 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
coincidence. I do not think that option is very likely either. The third option is that this was not a coincidence: maybe Ms Le Couteur is in cahoots with the government. Shock, horror—what a thought!
It is clear that this motion has been prepared in consultation between Ms Le Couteur and her government counterparts. Sometimes I wonder why we bother continuing to try to refer to it as a crossbench. The voting records, I am sure, would indicate a more government backbench-frontbench relationship between Ms Le Couteur and the Labor executive here. To paraphrase what Mr Coe, the Leader of the Opposition, quite memorably said during the Motor Accident Injury Bill debate last month, I wonder whether the Greens really realised what they were signing up to when they gave a blank cheque to the Labor Party. But I think the reverse is also true. It is a question for others to ponder, but at the end of the day it is a two-way street. It means that some motions, such as this, will be supported.
On the substance of the motion itself, reducing waste is an absolute necessity for the ACT. As the minister has already alluded to, reducing odour from the tip is also absolutely important. The implementation of a kerbside food organics and garden organics collection service is fundamentally a good idea. But I remind Ms Le Couteur and those opposite that these projects always come at a cost, and many Canberrans are already struggling with mounting costs as we speak. What will the cost of these bins be? Will Canberrans have to purchase them themselves? What will happen if they cannot afford the bin themselves? These are all questions that need to, and I am sure will, be answered during a consultation period.
The requirement for businesses to implement zero food waste to landfill is where we have major concerns. We agree in principle, as I have said many times already, that waste minimisation is a good thing. In fact back in 1996 we committed to zero waste by 2010, which this government have backed away from. However, more and more regulation and enforcement is not necessarily the best approach. We are fundamentally opposed to the government inserting itself in every aspect of our life. Incentivisation and accessibility are viable alternatives which may not require excessive government intervention into these business practices.
Another thing that needs to be talked through, addressed and consulted on is reference to charities such as OzHarvest, SecondBite, Foodbank, Communities@Work and YWCA. Many organisations have foodbank and food rescue components. Do they have the infrastructure to cope with such food as may be forthcoming? How many more trucks and volunteers or paid staff would be required to collect and redistribute it all? What cost would that have for charities, and would the funding for that come from the government? How would the health and hygiene risks be managed?
This motion itself is really just for show. It is reflective of the theatre that this place often becomes. I hope the government listens to our concerns and will come back in good faith to the community and the stakeholders when developing its food organics waste system.
The “calls on” in part (2)(b) is where we have significant issues with Ms Le Couteur’s motion. We support the concept of waste minimisation, even though we are generally
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video