Page 4238 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 29 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MS ELLIS (8.11): There are a couple of points I would like to make in relation to this discussion paper. The container deposit legislation regime in South Australia was introduced just on 20 years ago. Since that time it has developed into an incredibly popular system in South Australia, but I think it is fair to observe that much has changed in our environment since then. At that time, recycling either had never been heard of or had barely been heard of. Mr Moore is right when he says that the surveys that are carried out today in South Australia that look at the community's ongoing support for the CDL regime in South Australia are incredibly strong. I think it is correct and fair to analyse why that might be the case when we base opinion on that outcome. In some cases it could be almost a sentimental affection for a regime that they are used to, that works well for them, and that does not tend to interrupt anything else that comes along and is introduced alongside it. The committee was fairly open-minded on this aspect, and the testimony to that is the fact that we came down very strongly with the view that the current regime that is about to be introduced into the ACT - we are embarking on a very new recycling and waste collection system - is worthy of implementation. We need to see the results from that before we propose to interrupt that collection system.
As to my criticisms of the CDL regime per se, I have a fairly strong view on whether or not we as a community should put a money value on our rubbish when we are looking at a deterrent for littering. It worries me a little that we cannot in some way educate our community to keep their nests clean for reasons other than there being a dollar value on a piece of paper or a can or a bottle. That may be a little idealistic, but we have to be responsible and think carefully about what sort of attitude we may be promoting. When we consider the control of littering and the possibility of container deposit legislation to stop it, I point out that some of the most common litter that blows into my corner garden is the sort of litter that probably would not attract a container deposit, such as potato chip packets and Kit Kat wrappers. We need to ask: How far do we go and to what degree do we enforce this? To what degree do we influence the dollar being spent on educating our young people and educating our community to keep their areas clean for reasons other than being able to pick up a few dollars by wandering around the streets and collecting items of rubbish?
The issues I am raising through this process of our committee inquiry have become questions rather than criticisms, and I think that is very fair and proper comment when we come up with a discussion paper. These are the sorts of views we uncovered. These are the sorts of questions to which we have not formulated answers, but they are deserving of further examination in the new Assembly. I share Mr Moore's hope that, during the life of the new Assembly, the Conservation, Heritage and Environment Committee or its nearest parallel will do as this committee did with a couple of discussion papers left from the last Assembly. I think the discussion paper approach is a very positive way of working through issues of concern to our community when they are not black and white or when we are in transition, as I believe we are here with this new recycling and waste collection process. That is exciting in terms of the potential we have for setting up a good regime and, from what I saw during our visits to other States during this inquiry, I think the regime we are embarking upon here will be envied in many other parts of the country. The recycling systems I saw in Sydney and Adelaide do not in any sense resemble what it appears will happen here. I think we have a great opportunity for maximising both our waste collection and our recycling collection.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .