Page 4241 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 29 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
New South Wales does that or not. It would seem, on balance, that they probably will not, given that the Carr Labor Party has indicated that they do not intend to and the Fahey Government has indicated that it does not. It would seem that any likelihood of New South Wales going down that track is remote.
The report indicated that the ACT, with a population of 300,000, simply does not provide a large enough market for separate recycling and manufacturing systems to be set up by the large manufacturers to support an isolated system, which ours would be if New South Wales did not go down the track. It was also contended that the opportunity for abusing a deposit scheme is high where the transfer of containers across State and Territory boundaries is easily conducted. Queanbeyan being slap bang next to the ACT would make such abuse particularly likely. That places us in a somewhat different situation from South Australia, not only in terms of the isolation of South Australia and its borders with other States but also because their population is significantly larger than that of the ACT, and that is a factor.
The cost is something we cannot discount. Coles, who gave evidence before our committee, indicated that the cost of bottle returns to their operations in Adelaide ranged from 16c to 22c per bottle. Those were costs they bore in terms of recycling. There are additional costs if we go down the path of specific labels for soft drink bottles. Estimates were given to the committee that the cost of changing soft drink bottles in the ACT would be well over $900,000. The estimated cost to a small bottler to alter just three labels would be $8,000 to $10,000. Manufacturers and retailers, operating on the margins they do, especially in the ACT, where the margins are very small, would have to pass on any cost to the consumer. That is another limiting factor.
Apart from the issue of CDL, a number of other factors were looked at. The committee made certain comments, not so much by way of recommendations but, as the chairman has said, to indicate the way the committee is going. We were certainly not in agreement on everything, and that is indicated in the report, where phrases such as "part of the committee held the view that" are used. There were a number of areas where I certainly did not agree with the rest of the committee. One such area is paragraph 6.20, where this comment is made:
If the recycling rate is satisfactory the Committee also considers that it would then be appropriate for the community to explore ways of instigating the polluter pays principle through the taxation system where manufacturers would bear the costs of recycling programs as well as litter prevention campaigns.
I think that is unfair to business and unfair to the manufacturer; hence the comment:
However, an opinion was held within the Committee that manufacturers ought not to be singled out because manufacturers, industry and consumers all pollute and should be treated equally.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .