31 May 2011
Mr MORRIS (Mornington) — I am pleased to be able to contribute to the debate on the Environment Protection Amendment (Landfill Levies) Bill 2011. In contrast to the lead speaker from the opposition, the member for Bellarine, I want to talk about the subject of the bill, which is the issue of waste management, and in particular the very serious issue of reducing the stream of waste to landfill. This is an area in which I have had more than a passing interest and involvement over a substantial period of time, certainly not in recent years but in times past, and I will come back to that. I want to observe in passing that it is very pleasing to see the Minister for Environment and Climate Change in the chamber for the debate on this bill.
Can I correct the record in terms of suggestions about how the funds might be applied. The fact is that the landfill levy does not go to consolidated revenue; it goes into the Environment Protection Fund. Every last cent that is collected goes into the Environment Protection Fund — that is required by the act — and the moneys are then distributed in accordance with the distribution of landfill levy regulations made under the Environment Protection Act 1970.
These moneys can only be applied in a manner consistent with the regulations. They certainly cannot be used for cost savings or for other measures, as was suggested by the shadow Minister for Environment and Climate Change, the member for Bellarine. Perhaps in the process of familiarising herself with her new portfolio she may like to have a look at the Environment Protection Act 1970 and regulations made under the act to firm up her knowledge of the details of those processes.
As I said at the outset, the reduction of the waste stream going to landfill is an issue in which I have had an interest and with which I have had an involvement over a long period of time. I was first elected to Mornington council in 1987, and even though local government is traditionally roads, rates and rubbish, by 1987 those days were well and truly gone. I have to say that at that time I did not give rubbish a second thought in terms of whatever contribution I might have wanted to make to local government. We had a system that worked pretty well.
The rubbish went every week, but we did not give much thought to where it was going: we had a convenient hole in the ground, the rubbish disappeared and that was that. This was in the period immediately before quite a lot of work was done in terms of reducing the waste stream going to landfill and before the introduction of the first landfill levies. There were measures introduced, I think, under the Cain government, which were consolidated a little bit by the Kirner government and even more so and with greater effect by the Kennett government. This process has continued under governments from both sides.
To indicate what progress could be made in great leaps and bounds in those days, simply by preventing vegetation from going to landfill we managed to reduce over a period of some months the volume going to landfill by over one‑third.
That is impressive when you consider that that volume did not include any of the vegetation that was collected by the Parks Victoria crews, which was a considerable amount. That was all collected and burnt. Thankfully these days the processes are considerably better than that.
What is proposed in this bill is simply a replacement of the existing Schedule D with a new Schedule D. Just to put the figures into perspective, the rate proposed for metropolitan premises under this bill will be a levy of $44 for a tonne of waste. The current figure is $30. The figure proposed by the Brumby government was $40, a one‑third increase.
What is proposed is a modest further 10 per cent impost on that and then a further 10 per cent over three years. To put that into perspective, it is $1.68 per household per year, and I am sure that the vast majority of Victorian households — an overwhelming majority of Victorian households — would be very happy to pay that levy because of the dividends it will provide for the entire community and certainly for the environment in terms of improved processes and reduced volume to landfill.
It is a very small price to pay.
There was also some comment about the impact on councils. I understand the average impact on a council is $46 000 per year. That is the raw cost, and that assumes there will be no benefits, but of course the intention is to support councils and the community by investing this money in waste reduction initiatives. That is the whole point of the exercise.
It is a levy which will provide significant benefit to councils and in the near and medium term will be likely to provide a substantial reduction in disposal to landfill. On the point of costs, I make some comparison. The proposed cost of disposal is, as I said, $44 a tonne. In 2010–11 the cost in New South Wales was $70.30 a tonne, and in the Australian Capital Territory it was $66.35 a tonne, so what is proposed by the bill is not a particularly heavy impost.
The landfill levies will provide a financial incentive to reduce the level of waste. That is what the bill is about. The fact is that, given the way we were heading, we were not making an impact — the volume going to landfill was increasing. The likely outcome of this bill is a reduction something in the order of 282 000 to 285 000 tonnes of waste going to landfill per annum. In the debate last year I made the observation that the measure was a blunt instrument, and it is that, and I do not resile from those comments. If we are to have a significant impact on this problem, we need to bite the bullet, so to speak, and get things done. That view has been held consistently for a very, very long time by members on both sides of the house.
Unless we make a significant impact on the amount of waste going to landfill, simply because of a growing population we will continue to have to deal with a growing problem. That will not be good for the environment. The fact of the matter is that we do not have an endless supply of holes in the ground for waste. Back in the 1990s I was involved in the search for one. It was a particularly difficult task.
We have seen the problems we can have with landfills with what happened at the Brookland Greens estate and other places. Even though we are now much better at handling landfills than we were in the early days of settlement, we are still not great at doing it, so the more we can reduce waste going to landfill the better it is for the environment. I commend the bill to the house.
Legislative Assembly 31 May 2011
Printer Friendly Version...