Page 1227 - Week 04 - Thursday, 21 March 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
It is a heavy-handed national approach that seeks to undo the good work done at the COAG table.
It seems that all parties involved are happy for this to go through COAG except for the Greens, and you have to question why that would be so. Mind you, COAG found that a nationalised scheme would cost consumers up to $1.76 billion per annum. That is what the Greens want—$1.76 billion passed on to consumers for very little gain, I suspect.
It is interesting to note that in the Northern Territory government’s media release regarding this matter, one of the points mentioned by Terry Mills was:
If the scheme is brought to a halt, I expect that the price of goods affected by the decision to fall substantially, reflecting the previous price increases.
That is something Mr Rattenbury forgot to mention. Let me read that again:
If the scheme is brought to a halt, I expect that the price of goods affected by the decision to fall substantially, reflecting the previous price increases.
And we know through COAG that it is about $1.76 billion across the country. In a way, when companies need to provide a refund when a can or a bottle is returned to a depot, this is an expensive function. In effect, it amounts to a green tax on consumers, driving up the cost of the drinks. And it did not work. The scheme in the Northern Territory does not seem to be working as well as thought. After nine months of operation, two out of three containers are not being recycled. In the ACT, for example, where we have an effective kerbside recycling program, why supplement this with an ineffective program that is almost 30 years old? South Australia has indeed had it since 1975.
In the ACT we have consistently achieved 75 per cent since 2005-06 in recycling, considerably better than South Australia’s 66 per cent. So the state that has a container deposit scheme does not do as well as a territory that does not have it. This is under a government that, of course, failed to bring about no waste by 2010. The reason we have such a high rate? It is the ACT kerbside recycling.
People wanting to get their deposits have to get their empties to a recycling depot. I am reminded of an article written by Graham Downie, and I will read a few of the snippets:
The ACT has the highest rate of recycling in the country.
He goes on to say:
… Environment Minister Simon Corbell wants a change which would make our recycling less efficient and more expensive … Of course, he is supported by the Greens, whose grasp of reality and inability to recognise unintended consequences no longer ceases to surprise.
He said:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video