Page 1226 - Week 04 - Thursday, 21 March 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
matters affecting the ACT, you wonder whether that is an issue for us in this way. This is especially so in light of the fact that the Northern Territory government has expressed the following:
We will seek an exemption under the Commonwealth Mutual Recognition Act for CDL and have gained support from all States and the ACT to do this through the COAG process.
Yet again, the process is underway, but, yet again, not far enough, not fast enough for the Greenpeace warrior. What we have here is yet another Greens initiative driven by ideology. I reiterate: two activists were arrested on 18 February for protesting in front of Coca-Cola Amatil’s head office. They campaigned vigorously against the beverage company’s challenge against the Northern Territory. After the case, Greenpeace’s comments were, “It is now up to the other states to stand up to Coke’s bullying”. And like the good Greenpeace soldier that he is, here is Mr Rattenbury standing up.
I think that explains the sort of muddied or muddled context of today’s motion. The case that Mr Rattenbury—
Mr Rattenbury: Point of order, Mr Assistant Speaker.
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Mr Doszpot): Mr Smyth, please resume your seat for a moment.
Mr Rattenbury: Actually, no; it does not matter.
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Mr Rattenbury?
Mr Rattenbury: It is all right; I have changed my mind.
MR SMYTH: If we could stop the clock, please?
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Stop the clock, please.
MR SMYTH: No, he has changed his mind. All right, good.
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Mr Smyth, continue.
MR SMYTH: The case Mr Rattenbury referred to in this motion was not about stopping recycling. That said, it is strictly a conflict of law issue, which was resolved by the Federal Court confirming the following: that the Mutual Recognition Act trumps territory legislation as it ensures free movement of goods between jurisdictions without prohibition. It prevents any jurisdiction preventing or restricting the sales of goods from another jurisdiction. But this is not about this. Unfortunately, this is Mr Rattenbury’s excuse to re-raise the issue of expanding container deposit schemes.
They tried with the Environment Protection (Beverage Container Deposit and Recovery Scheme) Bill in 2010, but Labor and coalition senators worked together to oppose it. In fact, Labor Senator Anne Urquhart noted:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video