Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 13 Hansard (26 November) . . Page.. 4765 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

In August 2000, environment ministers, including the then ACT minister for the environment, signed a national packaging covenant and the intent was that the covenant would be the sole regulatory instrument for consumer packaging wastes for the life of the covenant. That was a deal that the previous government signed up to and which this government has respected. It is for that reason-because we, along with all other jurisdictions, respect it-that environment ministers have considered options for the management of plastic bags at a national level through the covenant process which the previous government signed up to. We are keeping the faith with that. There are some that think perhaps we should not do so but we are keeping the faith with the covenant that the previous government was a party to.

In relation to the issue of plastic bags, the provisions of that covenant have been utilised by governments since last October. In December 2002, environment ministers, pursuant to those arrangements, agreed to a range of initiatives for the management of plastic bags that will contribute to a community goal of cutting plastic bag litter by 75 per cent by 2005. The initiatives agreed to at that time-that is, December 2002, a year ago-included challenging retailers to develop and implement a strong national code of practice for the management of plastic retail carry bags, with targets for recycling and reductions in plastic bag use; developing legislative options, including possible levies and a ban on plastic bags; developing a proposal for a coordinated customer and retailer awareness program; and the undertaking of a comprehensive study on the full impact of the introduction of degradable plastic bags into the Australian marketplace. Those decisions were taken a year ago.

There was quite significant lobbying, particularly by retail traders, of all ministers. Consequent to that, a decision was taken, essentially by the Commonwealth, that the Commonwealth would not under any circumstances agree to the imposition of a levy. I have to say that the consultations and the negotiations that went on between environment ministers essentially developed around the potential for a levy being imposed.

Of course, there are two sorts of levies. One is a levy imposed by the Commonwealth, consistent with its constitutional power to do so. This would be a levy that could be charged in the form of a tax on those that supplied plastic bags, with the potential then perhaps for some notional hypothecation of the funds that were received as a result of that levy imposed by the Commonwealth.

The Commonwealth flatly, point blank, refused to impose such a levy. That, of course, was the point of the remarks which Ms Tucker just made, particularly in relation to the dissenting report by Labor members of the committee that inquired into Bob Brown's legislation. Senators Wong and Lundy, in referring to their support for a levy, made the point that the Commonwealth had refused to impose a levy.

We need to distinguish between the Commonwealth's refusal to impose a levy and the potentiality of states and territories imposing a separate levy. States and territories, without the constitutional power to impose a tax, would in effect only be able to legislate for the retailer to impose the levy and for the retailer to collect the levy-for the levy to go into the retailer's pocket. I do not think this would lead to perhaps the outcomes that we are seeking.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .