House of Assembly Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Bills Environment Protection (Product Deposit Scheme) Amendment Bill ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION (PRODUCT DEPOSIT SCHEME) AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Second Reading Adjourned debate on second reading. (Continued from 30 October 2008. Page 731.) Ms BEDFORD House of Assembly Florey Ms BEDFORD (Florey) (11:13): The government welcomes the interest being shown in these issues. However, the measure is at odds with the opposition's stance on plastic bags, and, so, the bill will not be supported. Extension of the container deposit legislation (CDL) may provide a solution for some wastes—those passing quickly from purchase to consumption where cleanliness is not the issue, such as cardboard milk cartons—but it is unlikely to provide a solution for the wider range of products in the waste stream. In any event, there are solutions based on a complement of products, stewardship and extended producer responsibility. Exploring these solutions will be a government priority. Just last week, the Environment Protection (Waste to Resources) Policy (EPP) was released for consultation. This draft policy is the first step in banning waste from landfill, including e-waste, compact fluorescent lights, fluorescent tubes, batteries, medical sharps, and tyres. The purpose of the EPP is to provide a time frame to ensure systems are in place for the resource recovery of waste prior to the ban of waste to landfill; that is, computer monitors and TV bans are proposed to take effect one year after the commencement of the EPP, with other electronic waste three years post commencement. The design will be complex. It will include the responsibility of the consumer, producer, broader communities and regulators. It will be economically feasible and responsible. A national approach is obviously desirable, and at last week's ministerial council meeting the ministers supported the development of a national waste policy and the compilation of a comprehensive report on waste. Council also resolved to support several initiatives to improve the management of priority waste issues (including product stewardship policy) at the national level. If an agreement is not reached, the government has resolved to go it alone. A simplistic solution, such as the extension of CDLs, is not believed to be the best answer. The Hon. I.F. EVANS House of Assembly Davenport The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (11:15): I thank the honourable member for her comments. Obviously that brief was provided by the department. Unfortunately, the arguments put forward by the honourable member are simply not valid. The CDL program about which she talks has been operating for 25 years without a national scheme. We talk about needing a national scheme for waste, recycling or litter reduction, but the fact is that the proof is in the pudding in South Australia—our system works. The reality is that to bring in product deposits on a range of other goods would be a community benefit, and simply banning them from landfill does not solve the problem. I give the honourable member the example of rubber tyres that are banned from landfill. If you drive around the country you can see mountains of rubber tyres, because the system has not dealt with them. Once you ban them, you need a market to get them recycled. What the deposit system does—as it did with the container deposit system—is to work hand in glove with developing a recycling market. What my bill did and does is set up a framework. It commits the government to do nothing. All it does is set up the framework so that in one, two, five, 10 or 20 years, when the recycling market is developed, a product deposit can be introduced. The government's response essentially says, 'This idea is not our idea, so we will not support it.' The government's stance is pathetic. Second reading negatived.