Page 3383 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 20 August 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There are a few points I want to make about Dr Foskey’s motion. This motion does represent a call for renewal of the government commitment to the no waste strategy. It is a commendable call given the apparent waning of government interest in this subject. But there is little that is new in Dr Foskey’s call. It is a collection of all the issues she has been calling for over several years, although laudably. There are some worthwhile suggestions, however, in regard to community awareness, organic waste collection and procurement policies.
Community awareness about waste and recycling has been raised in recent years and the evolution of the education system in this area is producing a new generation, most of whom are more sensitised to waste and recycling issues. That is a good thing. But there is a need to go to the next level—community education—to ensure that interest and commitment are maintained.
The community needs to know that our waste minimisation performance is stagnating. We need another Clean Up Australia education program. We need to re-emphasise those sorts of initiatives. Organic material makes up only an estimated 14 per cent of waste going to landfill, but there are systems in operation today that are capable of processing this material.
Dr Foskey proposes a green bin system to handle this, but that is only part of the solution. More needs to be done and unfortunately Dr Foskey has not listed the other areas that need to be addressed. For example, all organic waste processing systems rely on purification of the waste stream. Green bin systems are notorious for failing to deliver that. Human nature and some bad behaviour inevitably result in contamination of the waste with plastic, metals and glass.
Glass particularly is a problem because the end product of most organic waste processing, compost, is of limited value if it contains shards of broken glass. What Dr Foskey should have proposed is that systems and processes to purify the organic waste stream be included. The Canberra Liberals’ waste policy will certainly address that issue.
Governments already adopt procurement policies that aim for best value for money outcomes. Purchase price is only one consideration and procurement decisions should take account of quality of performance, maintenance costs and other impacts on ownership over the life of a product. It is only a natural extension of that approach to consider disposal cost and methods as part of the procurement decision. A full cradle-to-grave assessment should be made.
Dr Foskey would place greater emphasis on producer responsibility, requiring them to produce goods that can be recycled and to package them more appropriately. These are worthy initiatives but they are of little value if the ACT is to go it alone. That is the point. They are worthy initiatives that will be of little value if the ACT cannot bring our jurisdiction cousins along with us. We are a tiny island and we need to address those sorts of issues.
On balance, we are inclined to support Dr Foskey’s motion mainly because it serves to highlight the government’s declining interest in this important area. However, it
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .