Page 2324 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 29 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Secondly, my motion in no way denigrates those people who work to help us dispose of our waste and implement the no waste practitioners. I am sure that our bureaucrats are mature enough to separate political discussion from their work and I commend them for that. I wish to refer to several issues that Mr Hargreaves touched on in his speech. The Glebe Park pilot program has been running for quite some time. I am interested in how it is going, whether there is any monitoring, how long it will be a pilot program and when it will be implemented in other places.
Anecdotally, I have heard that it is going well. People having picnics, at least in one part of the ACT, are pleased when they are able to recycle. Referring to the fluorescent light drop-off, people have to drive their cars to the Mugga Lane facility to get rid of their rubbish so I am not really sure how that helps our greenhouse problem. One of the things that the ACT is lacking is kerbside collections for a number of things, including green waste. We should rethink the Sunday recycling program as it is probably not the most effective way of recycling things that people might want.
Mr Hargreaves mentioned that there might be a HotRot or similar composting facility at Hume. I commend him for that and I am excited about the idea. It is way overdue but it is a really good idea. Places like Waterfront, luxury apartments that I had the pleasure of looking at a couple of days ago, should be encouraged to set up composting schemes. No doubt quite a bit of green waste will come from multi-residential developments, of which there are so many in the ACT. It is okay for people with gardens to compost, but it is really difficult for people who do not have access to any ground to do that.
I moved this motion because I want the government to recommit. I am not impressed by the third paragraph of Mr Hargreaves’s amendment which refers to the Labor government’s aspirational target. We know that John Howard will be going to APEC with a Kyoto aspirational target to reduce greenhouse gases. China, the biggest producer of greenhouse gases in the world, will be happy about aspirational targets simply because it does not have to meet them.
I would support Mr Hargreaves’s amendment if the word “aspiration” in his third paragraph was replaced with the word “a”. That wording would indicate that the government really wanted to achieve such a target. The word “aspiration” is very nice but it will not achieve that target.
Debate interrupted in accordance with standing order 74 and the resumption of the debate made an order of the day for a later hour.
Sitting suspended from 12.30 to 2.30 pm.
Questions without notice
Emergency services—FireLink
MR STEFANIAK: My question without notice is to the Chief Minister. In the Auditor-General’s report on the FireLink project that was released yesterday, the Auditor makes the following key finding:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .