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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 08 Hansard (Tuesday, 3 August 2004) . . Page.. 3364 ..

unleased territory land, roads, and road related areas. I notice that it will now become an offence for a person to put household or commercial rubbish in a litter bin placed in a public place.

The legislation also has a focus on littering by escaping materials during transportation. This clarifies responsibility for employers to provide for employees, meaning that they have to secure loads so as to prevent material escaping. In his tabling speech, the minister said that the new provisions would be properly publicised to maximise their impact on littering behaviour.

The Greens support a holistic strategy for dealing with waste. The territory’s goal of zero waste is worthless unless producers are made responsible for used goods and packaging, and bans on illegal dumping are strictly enforced. The concept of extended producer responsibility is a strategy to move closer to a holistic strategy for waste management.

The OECD defines extended producer responsibility as a policy approach under which producers accept significant responsibility, financial and/or physical, for the treatment or disposal of post-consumer production. The key features of extended producer responsibility are the prevention of waste at the source, and enhancing product design for the environment; that is, taking into consideration potentially littered components of products and packaging at the design stage.

The intention is to transfer some of the costs and/or physical responsibility of managing litter back to the producers of commonly littered items. Actions that these ideas translate into include container deposit legislation, reduction of unnecessary packaging, product labelling, industry programs and support, and industry water reduction plans.

The economic system that we have profited from over the past 200 years has never built in the real costs of wasting resources or disposing of waste. Those costs are borne by an eroding of diminished physical environment and healthy rivers, and the frantic exploitation of resources around the world, with at times a destructive impact on the environments and the people who live there. It is an impact that will be carried by future generations. The national packaging covenant is only voluntarily and allows manufacturers to avoid—

At 5.00 pm, in accordance with standing order 34, the debate was interrupted. The motion for the adjournment of the Assembly, having been put and negatived, the debate was resumed.

MS TUCKER: The national packaging covenant is only voluntary and allows manufacturers to avoid responsibility for the packaging and containers they generate. Only South Australia has container deposit legislation with the incentive of a deposit to return containers. The beverage industry is strongly opposing the introduction of container deposit legislation in other states and territories. However, in the Cleanup Australia rubbish report 2003, more than 30 per cent of the rubbish collected was beverage containers. This emphasises the need for a national container deposit legislation.

I have spoken before in the Assembly about plastic bags and cigarette butts. The Greens have called for a levy to be introduced on plastic bags. A similar strategy in Ireland

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