Page 4713 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 31 October 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
assist them in meeting costs, such as the onerous requirements in the lead-up to the implementation of the container deposit scheme across the border, and alleviate the burden on their cash flows in those early stages
As part of this bill, the network operator becomes responsible for entering into agreements with operators of the collection points. It is clear that these collection points—their location and the number of them—will ultimately determine the success of the scheme. The director of the Total Environment Centre, who was heavily involved in lobbying for the container deposit scheme in New South Wales, agrees that the scheme’s success is dependent upon the number and location of collection points. In media reports earlier this year he said:
The more convenient it is, the more people who’ll use it. It affects the reputation of the scheme if people can’t get their money back. A nasty aspect of it is that the company gets to keep [the money] if it’s not recycled. It’s not intended as a pay rise for beverage companies, it’s intended as a way to maximise recycling. This is not being run for the benefit of big companies, it’s being run for the benefit of the environment …
Given the propensity for vandalism at our local shopping centres, it is quite likely that someone that has gone to the trouble of collecting their containers to take to one of the vending machines that may be placed around the territory may find that it is not in operation, and that, in effect, may be enough to put them off ever trying to take part in the container deposit scheme again.
The biggest financial beneficiary of the introduction of this scheme is in fact the Labor-Greens government. There is no evidence that the legislation introduced by New South Wales last year is effective in any way. The environmental credentials of the container deposit scheme simply do not stack up, and the lack of transparency and accountability is staggering.
The biggest beneficiary of this scheme is not the environment, as the government would have us all believe, but instead the government itself. Under this scheme, with respect to bottles and cans that are traditionally put into the yellow recycling bins in homes across Canberra and collected as part of the fortnightly collection service, the deposit will be split between the operator of the materials recovery facility, or MRF, and the ACT government—a cash grab of potentially over $4 million each, based on current recycling figures; an unearned profit for the MRF operator and another tax grab on the part of the ACT government, funded entirely by beer drinkers across the ACT.
Ultimately, this bill provides for a tax on beverages, paid for by consumers, with the administrative impost placed on business largely benefiting the government. For these reasons the Canberra Liberals will not be supporting the legislation.
MR RATTENBURY (Kurrajong) (4.32): I am pleased to rise in support of this bill, which will introduce a container deposit scheme in the territory. This is an initiative that the Greens have long supported and called for because we know it is an effective way to help reduce waste going to landfill and to recover valuable resources. With plans underway to have a container deposit scheme operating in New South Wales by
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video