Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 13 Hansard (19 November) . . Page.. 3754 ..

MR WOOD (continuing):

Although the Chifley trial successfully collected 60 per cent of the targeted food and kitchen organic material, it was apparent that an appropriate reprocessing technology might still be needed to deal with the mixed waste remaining in the residual bin. Accordingly, it was decided at that time that it would not be financially responsible to fund collection of a third green-waste bin as well as funding future processing technology for the residual waste. Instead, it seemed sensible to seek a reprocessing technology that can effectively recover the resources from this stream. That whole issue, which is an important one in the steps that are being taken, is constantly under review. We don't wipe anything out.

While this technology for the domestically collected waste stream will undoubtedly require increased funding for new technology or other systems, significant increases in funding would also be necessary in the future for continued land fill disposal. So there is money required one way or the other, and we know the way we want to go. Therefore, we are approaching the point where the ACT will need to decide whether the community is prepared to pay the cost necessary to achieve no waste versus the cost of establishing another landfill. This can be seen obviously as a choice between sustainable and non-sustainable.

Urban Services has recently undertaken a review of the no waste strategy and will shortly bring back to government recommendations for continuing implementation of the strategy with details on the cost of achieving no waste. Based on this review, new initiatives will be developed for implementation during the period 2003-06. We recognise that as we move forward it will become harder and more costly to make the big gains needed. This government was supportive of the no waste strategy when in opposition and remains committed to seeing the no waste strategy continue to success.

MRS DUNNE (4.34): Mr Speaker, I have pleasure in rising to support the matter of public importance proposed by Ms Dundas. I am a keen supporter of the no waste by 2000 target and I commend Ms Dundas for her initiative in promoting further discussion on this vital matter.

The matter of public importance talks about recommittal, and I think this is something that we need to do. I think, as in some marriages-I presume not Mr Wood's or mine-from time to time one wanders from the point a bit. From time to time some of those people who seem to wander from the point sometimes come back and make a recommittal of their vows. I think this is an appropriate time to recommit to the notion of no waste by 2010.

One of the issues I would like to raise is putrescible waste. This issue, which has been raised by Mr Wood, is a key component of the debate that has for too long been overlooked. Mr Wood said that one of the reasons the Chifley trial came to an end was that we didn't have in place appropriate reprocessing technology; and that there was a greater need to seek one rather than continue collecting putrescible waste in the form undertaken in the Chifley trial. I think that is a very valid point.

So when we are recommitting to no waste by 2010, as we are requested to do by the matter of public importance we are debating, we should look at the really difficult issue of putrescible waste. We generate putrescible waste-that is, food scraps, the remains of agricultural crops and grass clippings-every day. Putrescible waste consists of all plant

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .