Page 1220 - Week 04 - Thursday, 21 March 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
It is important to note as well that in the ACT there is still plenty of ground to be made to capture more recyclable materials. In the commercial waste sector, 30 to 40 per cent of waste going to landfill is recyclable. In the residential sector, about 10 to 20 per cent of the waste going to landfill is recyclable material such as aluminium cans and glass. Of course, these items are also collected in bulk every year as litter in our environment.
Many container deposit schemes operate effectively worldwide. California, for example, has a successful scheme. Certainly the Netherlands operates one, and it was one that I was very familiar with in my time living there where one simply collected the containers in a crate and took them back down to the supermarket for a credit once every now and then, and people operated very comfortably under the scheme.
In Australia, South Australia has had a container deposit scheme for over 30 years. It appears to have been very successful, not only in terms of the amount of recycling in South Australia and in the industry that has developed there but also in terms of litter. The latest Keep Australia Beautiful survey, for example, shows that South Australia has both the lowest overall volume of litter in Australia and, by far, the lowest volume of beverage container litter, better even than the ACT, which already does quite well.
The immediate prompt for this motion stems from an issue that recently occurred in the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory established a container deposit scheme called the cash for containers scheme, which reportedly was very popular and was operating well. Unfortunately, Australia’s second scheme, introduced by the territory in 2012, has been stymied by a legal challenge by three large beverage companies, Coca-Cola Amatil, Schweppes and Lion. These three companies are now being dubbed by some as the “dirty three”.
The beverage companies challenged the case on the basis of the Mutual Recognition Act. Essentially it was a case of statutory interpretation of that act. The Mutual Recognition Act seeks to ensure the free movement of goods and services throughout Australia. So it requires that, subject to certain exceptions, goods that can be sold in one state or territory can also be sold in other states or territories without having to comply with additional restrictions. This means a state or territory generally cannot do things such as requiring imported goods to have a different label or different packaging or be produced in a certain way.
It comes up in the ACT from time to time. For example, although we are soon to outlaw battery cage farming in the ACT, we cannot outlaw the sale of battery cage eggs from other jurisdictions, because battery cage farming remains legal there.
The beverage companies’ challenge to the Northern Territory’s container deposit scheme is very disappointing. It is disappointing that companies were so willing to thwart a good recycling initiative, but this is what we invariably see in these kinds of situations. How many times before have we seen corporate giants use corporate lobbying power or deeper pockets or even just threats of legal action to block or dismantle positive environmental action? The reality is that business does not always prioritise the environment in the same way as a government might, whose role is to consider the interests of the whole community and the environment.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video