Page 4237 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 29 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The interesting thing about South Australia is that a recent survey showed that around 90 per cent of South Australians believe that their container deposit system should continue, even with the weaknesses in the system that the committee recognised and which the department, whom the appropriate Minister made available to talk to us, also recognised. There is no doubt that one of those weaknesses is that the 5c deposit is clearly much too low. There are some other issues that I think are very important and that I would like to touch on. The notion that we should be an island in New South Wales was always of concern to members of this committee. We had discussions in New South Wales with a range of people of varying opinions, and those are included in the report.
One of the things that came out of our discussion and was pushed again and again, particularly by the Litter and Recycling Research Association, which represents the industry in this area, particularly soft drink manufacturers and so forth, was the targets that ANZECC has set. The committee felt that, particularly for the ACT, these targets are very low. Such targets could very easily be met, and are already being met, by the ACT even before we start our recycling campaigns. So, when people say, "Yes, but we are meeting ANZECC targets", the committee felt that that simply was not adequate. The ANZECC figures can be easily exceeded. Information was provided to committee members that would indicate that a recycling rate of some 80 per cent is expected from our kerbside recycling. It will be interesting to see whether that can be attained. It was plain from South Australia, where container deposit legislation applies and works at a reasonable figure, that one could expect a 90 to 95 per cent recycling rate.
Another interesting thing is the way different people use statistics. They talk about a percentage of land fill, saying that we would need to reach 30 per ; but the committee would then have to work out whether they were talking about by weight or by volume. If that is not set out clearly, you get a very different picture. If you are talking about the PET plastic bottles of Coke or some other soft drink that we commonly pick up from the supermarket, the weight is very small but they may take up a vast amount of room in a land fill site.
Those are some of the issues that are dealt with in the discussion paper. By and large, the committee felt that it was very important that the responsibility for recycling, for litter, be shared amongst the manufacturers and the consumers as well as the retailers, but that it ought not to be loaded entirely onto one group or the other. Seeking that balance is part of the challenge we have in front of us. In no way was the committee inclined to undermine the kerbside recycling system that has been started in the ACT; rather, we want to see whether we can find ways to supplement it and to improve it.
On a small note, the committee wrote to the surrounding local government authorities. Amongst our replies was one from Gunning Shire Council, which was concerned about tyres being dumped in their shire, particularly tyres from Canberra. One of the issues we have raised in this discussion paper is whether or not it is appropriate to put a deposit on such things as tyres, car batteries and other batteries, which are not likely to be caught up in our normal recycling process but are clearly a major concern for our community. The discussion paper in many ways asks more questions than it answers; but it does set a direction, and we look forward to revisiting this issue should any of us be back in the Assembly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .