House of Assembly Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Grievance Debate E-Waste E-WASTE Mr HANNA House of Assembly Mitchell Mr HANNA (Mitchell) (15:34): I bring to the attention of members of the House of Assembly the issue of e-waste, in particular the disposal of computer equipment. I mean both the hard drive component and the monitors, both of which cause serious problems in terms of our landfill and pollution. I am drawing on a report prepared by Yvette Booth which was commissioned by Cognitive Engines Pty Ltd, an Adelaide-based IT company. The report which I have drawn from for the purpose of today makes extensive recommendations in relation to e-waste and even goes to the issue of trading waste to have it dumped overseas. That is a serious issue, but I want to focus on the situation in South Australia. This story has some positive aspects; indeed, a statewide policy is in place for the proper disposal of this sort of equipment. To go right back to the start, we have something called the National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development and, in South Australia, every department should be following the principles of environmentally sustainable procurement. Obviously, some computer assets are more toxic than others in terms of the ultimate trip to the landfill. We also have Zero Waste SA which has a role in monitoring the disposal of this sort of waste. We also have an agency which was set up originally through the TAFE sector called the Computer Recycling Scheme. Although it started off as an agency which could get unwanted TAFE computers ready for resale or donation to schools and community centres, it is actually there for the whole of government. The unfortunate part of the story in South Australia is that many departments (perhaps most departments) do not seem to be taking advantage of the computer recycling scheme. Approximately 10,000 computers a year are replaced within the South Australian public sector. It is estimated that only about 10 per cent of those computers are recycled through the scheme. Of those that are not recycled through that scheme, a few seem to be sold off within departments—and I am not sure about how happy the Auditor-General would be about some of those processes—but many are simply dumped, and I think most of us underestimate just how toxic computers are, particularly monitors. The old-style monitors (which have a cathode ray system) and the computers together contain a number of toxic minerals like cadmium, lead and so on. They end up in our landfill and, in many cases, these minerals leach into the soil. They are extremely toxic. Mercury also features in these items. The computer industry is a large contributor to carbon dioxide emissions worldwide and, in these times when we are conscious of greenhouse gases, we need to acknowledge that our reliance on computers means that we are contributing substantially more to the problem that our planet has with global warming. Some positive things are being done in South Australia but not nearly enough. I would also like to mention the contribution made by the City of Onkaparinga, City of Unley and the City of West Torrens, all of whom over the past few years have made special efforts to have computers recycled rather than simply dumped in landfill. In terms of the ultimate solution, I suggest that the government consider something like a beverage container deposit scheme. We are very familiar with that in terms of bottles in South Australia. The solution probably needs to be adopted at a national level, if not an international level. It seems to me that, because there is a cost to recycling—and it is a substantial cost to the consumer at the end of life of the goods—if the cost of $10, $30 or $50 was charged as part of the purchase price and people could get a refund, they would be more likely to recycle. Time expired.