Page 2661 - Week 09 - Thursday, 9 August 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
single truck and a single driver collection so that prices can be kept down. Economic circumstances are very important.
I would just like to run on a few of the negative things, but I do not want to be taken in the wrong light. I think that the bulk of the Government's response to this report is very positive and I would like to support it, the same as I supported the bulk of the report in the first place, apart from the whole notion of big bins and the other matters that were raised by Mr Wood in his very competent minority report. As he said himself, he is very pleased to see that the Government has adopted his minority report as part of its recommendations. I think it is a very positive thing that the Government is prepared to do that and is not just trying to win cheap political points, as its members are so keen on saying.
Page 11 of the report talks about the ACT Government investigating the extent to which builders' spoil can be recycled and used in relation to road building. It also talks about community recycling, the litter and waste minimisation projects, the greenspot labelling and the investigation of recycling in the commercial sector. I name those few to illustrate that these are very good moves and to illustrate that I really do support the Government's response before I get to container deposit legislation.
I know many people are very uncomfortable with container deposit legislation. I accept that the Government has said, "possible consideration in the long term", so it has not ruled it out. That is positive. Personally I would have liked to have seen a much stronger stance on container deposit legislation because I think littering and the increase in waste will be part and parcel of that deposit legislation. The fact that it is still there as a possible consideration leaves it, in effect, as a big stick, so that businesses can play their roles in ensuring that whatever they use as packaging is recycled.
I then go on to point 47, which states that:
... the ACT Milk Authority carefully consider and publicly specify any gains that can be made if the one litre non-refillable milk bottle is permanently introduced ...
That is supported in principle. Well, it is not difficult to support careful consideration. Personally I would have liked to have seen a much stronger stance than that. There is no doubt that the non-refillable milk bottle has advantages over some of the other containers that the Milk Authority is using, but, clearly there has been a move towards a return to the refillable, recyclable bottle. I think the Government should be emphasising the need to do that.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .