Page 1221 - Week 04 - Thursday, 21 March 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
South Australia’s container deposit scheme was originally challenged as well. The Bond Brewing Co took the matter to the High Court, despite the acknowledged environmental benefits of the scheme. The case was called Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v South Australia, and the Castlemaine case remains a law school favourite, concerning section 92 of the Australian constitution which protects the freedom of interstate and intrastate trade.
I think we need to do some very careful reflection about these situations where good environmental outcomes can be squashed in the name of free trade requirements. It is an issue that comes up at the international level as well, through the World Trade Organisation and similar mechanisms. Over the years, for example, we have seen the WTO undo initiatives to prevent dolphins from drowning in tuna nets, to introduce clean air legislation or efforts to prevent overfishing of the oceans. Many in the community see it as perverse outcomes to view these situations solely through the economic prism.
In terms of container deposit legislation, the governments of Australia are in the situation where we have the power to ensure that container deposit schemes work, including the Northern Territory’s scheme, if we decide this is what we want to do. In relation to the Northern Territory’s scheme, the Mutual Recognition Act provides this avenue. It allows all jurisdictions to agree to exempt an act from its scheme. This is why the South Australian container deposit scheme already operates legally. It has a permanent exemption to the Mutual Recognition Act. The Northern Territory does not have this exemption, but it can be given one. The Northern Territory government has indicated that it intends to seek national support to gain an exemption from the Mutual Recognition Act.
The motion today asks that the ACT do its part for national recycling and support the Northern Territory’s request. We should of course do this in the interests of recycling and good environmental outcomes. Beyond this, there is a second avenue to advance container deposit schemes in Australia and the ACT, and that is to implement a national container deposit scheme. In my opinion, a national scheme would be the ideal. It would mean a consistent, harmonious scheme of container deposit recycling right across the country, avoiding the challenges that individual jurisdictions face when they implement it alone.
Having said that, I would be reluctant to rule out the option of the ACT progressing a container deposit scheme, necessarily in conjunction with New South Wales, in the absence of federal action on the matter. I do have to note that this issue has moved at a snail’s pace at the federal level. There was an agreement to undertake consultation and develop the regulatory impact statement in early 2008. That is certainly quite some time to work through a basic regulatory impact statement. Nevertheless, I remain positive that we can get there, and supporting this motion is important in ensuring that we get that long-awaited federal action. The current federal environment minister has said that he supports a container deposit scheme, provided the states and territories support it. So it is up to us, jurisdiction by jurisdiction, to press for this national scheme.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video