Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 6 Hansard (14 June) . . Page.. 1759 ..

Mr Berry: I do. I reckon you should make it edible.

MR MOORE: I hope Mr Berry has an amendment ready because his solution is that we make the containers edible, which strikes me as being very sensible.

Mr Berry: You probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference!

MR MOORE: Given some of the takeaway food that my kids force me to eat, who would know, as Mr Berry says, the difference between the food and the container, anyway? That is yet another solution but, before Mr Berry puts it in a bill, I am sure he will do an appropriate amount of research and impact assessment of such a thing-

Mr Berry: Finding the flavours. I'll go looking for the flavours.

MR MOORE: And then we will see it there. I do not disagree with the intention of the Greens' bill, but the method is wrong. For that reason the government will be opposing it.

MR CORBELL (4.27): The intention behind the Food (Amendment) Bill (No 3) 1998 is an important one. The volume of waste that is generated by food outlets is considerable. It is perhaps the least regulated of the many waste streams in the territory in terms of our ability to reuse or recycle the material generated, and Ms Tucker rightly identifies this problem. It is important to note that Ms Tucker's bill focuses on the containers that are provided for people who are eating in an outlet, a food hall or a place such as that. It does not target the containers or packaging provided for people who purchase at a local fish and chip shop or a larger chain and take the food away. It is important to draw that distinction.

Mr Berry: You have to have a packet to put the packet in.

MR CORBELL: Nevertheless, the Labor Party does have concerns with the approach advocated by Ms Tucker on this occasion. The requirement to provide for recyclable or reusable implements and containers is one which we have concerns with-again, concerns not with the intention but the practicality of its delivery. On this occasion the Labor Party has concerns that the approach seems to be: we will legislate top down, and it shall be done. The reality is far from the case.

As Mr Moore has rightly identified, there is a range of serious implications for business in terms of its capacity to respond to this law, even with the 12-month transition period outlined in the bill. For example, the cost to business is not insignificant and neither are the potential impacts on the provision of space for washing or recycling activities. Those are concerns that are shared by the opposition.

Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, the Labor Party will not be supporting this bill today. We believe there are better approaches to this situation than the one proposed in this bill. For example, the Labor Party would welcome the creation of industry waste reduction plans that targeted this particular waste stream and where arrangements, either mandatory or voluntary, were entered into with the industry affected. For example, there is a range of provisions in New South Wales industry waste reduction plans for a range

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .