Page 2696 - Week 09 - Thursday, 25 August 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
the environment. Moreover, when given the opportunity to introduce an environmentally friendly idea, they should do everything in their power to get help to get the idea into action. This legislation is one such opportunity which should not be put aside but should be looked at carefully and, if appropriate, put into practice as soon as possible.
Another reason why the reintroduction of beverage container deposits should go ahead is the fact that the manufacturers really ought to take responsibility for the disposal of their containers instead of leaving it to the Government to take it, which is an unnecessary financial burden and worry. If the companies had the responsibility on them it would be far more likely that something would be done with the containers instead of their becoming yet another environmental problem.
As far as this draft legislation is concerned, the Conservation, Heritage and Environment Committee are now calling for submissions and will be conducting public hearings in the near future. They will visit South Australia and New South Wales as part of their reference on the reintroduction of reusable beverage containers. South Australia already has implemented such legislation, and at the moment New South Wales is considering doing it. Some argue that the ACT needs to have the same legislation as New South Wales, and there are many obvious reasons for that. One problem identified is the scenario of a person who buys, say, 500 bottles in Queanbeyan without paying a deposit on them and then comes into the ACT and makes a profit from that purchase. There are other concerns and there are better and more ideal solutions, but perhaps in this case we ought to have the same legislation as New South Wales. These are the problems that will be dealt with in the committee, which is working on the terms of reference which I indicated earlier.
Sitting suspended from 12.25 to 2.30 pm
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Electricity Charges
MRS CARNELL: My question without notice is to the Chief Minister. I refer the Chief Minister to her statement in the Assembly yesterday regarding the corporatisation of the Snowy Mountains hydro-electric scheme from 1 July 1995. Chief Minister, is it not true that approximately 30 per cent of Canberra's electricity is provided by the Snowy scheme and is currently supplied at a significantly lower price than it would be from alternative sources, such as Pacific Power? Why have you not told the people of Canberra that, when our preferential deal with the Snowy scheme ends on 1 July, due to the corporatisation of the scheme, and supplies are then provided to the ACT at commercial prices, they are facing substantial increases, of as much as 10 per cent, in electricity charges from that day?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .