Page 1228 - Week 04 - Thursday, 21 March 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
True, we have failed to achieve the Government’s target of no waste by 2010, but we have consistently achieved 75 per cent since 2005-06—considerably better than South Australia’s 66 per cent … Removing beverage containers from these collections would significantly reduce their efficiency. People wanting to recover their deposits would have to get the empties to a recycling depot. So there would be more pollution from the additional private vehicle journeys because kerbside recycling collections would continue.
He then goes on say:
A 2002 report to the ACT Government by the Centre for Environmental Solutions says it is highly unlikely a deposit scheme would increase beverage container recovery in the ACT to any appreciable extent. But it would increase the annual cost to residents of recycling by $2.8 million to $5.9 million; not including unquantified costs for auditing, enforcement and education.
The government has a report from the Centre for Environmental Solutions that says it does not add anything except a cost to the taxpayer. So you would wonder why we would follow this. So people wanting to get their deposits would have to take their empties to the recycling depot. That contradicts the government’s policy on public transport—very hard to take a tub of recyclables on an ACTION bus. It is the same reason we had the green bin policy—to save people the trip out and make it more efficient. If you have got more people driving, you have got more pollution. Of course, if you do not have a car you will have to use the kerbside recycling bin and forfeit your deposit money anyway. So, those less well off do not get the benefits.
Ultimately this comes down to cost of living. The government’s track record and the Greens’ track record on the cost of living have been poor. It costs Canberrans a bomb to support with very little positive outcomes. As I said, the ACIL Tasman report on the impact of a beverage container deposit scheme in New South Wales households made it pretty clear: impacts on households would range from a $137 addition to $473 per household per year on the standard range of incomes in New South Wales. Given, as I said, our higher average incomes, one would expect it to be much higher in the ACT.
The debate today from Mr Rattenbury and the government cannot show tangible benefits to Canberrans. A study conducted by UMR Research found that, when presented with the facts, support for a container deposit scheme dropped, and the reasons were: price increase outweighs deposit return, overall costs too high, inconvenience of getting to a depot, too complex, and the existing system works fine. These are not factors worthy of increasing household costs by up to or more than $473 per year.
This motion is muddled. It is another Greens motion all dressed up in reasonableness without any regard to who has to pay for it. If it is about the Northern Territory and their scheme, everybody is content that this should be done through COAG. If this is about adopting the scheme in the ACT, we contend that kerbside recycling in our city has made a far greater contribution than any container deposit scheme.
Amendment agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video