LITTER REDUCTION

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:29): I move:

That this house calls upon the state government to undertake a review of litter reduction strategies, including the possible introduction of a levy on throwaway containers.

I am sure all members are very observant when they get around the state. I believe that, contrary to what we might have expected a few years ago, the litter problem is still there; in fact, in some areas I think it is actually worse. That is despite the efforts of KESAB, which is headed by John Phillips and is an organisation that has put a lot of effort into trying to make South Australia litter free and in generally helping the state to look better in terms of aesthetics.

I know some people argue that litter is not the biggest environmental issue, and that is true, it is not. Nevertheless, it is important in terms of what happens to some of that litter, particularly in relation to plastic bags and things like that, which can end up causing harm, especially in the aquatic environment. Apart from those environmental concerns, the other aspect is generally with regard to aesthetics. It does not inspire confidence in people or give them comfort to be in an environment that is littered with all sorts of material.

As I said, KESAB—and there are other organisations involved and some government agencies: the EPA, Zero Waste and local government—is involved in trying to deal with the issue of litter, whether it be through enforcement or removal and so on. There are a lot of litter reduction programs. Members may have heard of some of them, which I will list. I do so acknowledging the information provided by KESAB, which has been very helpful with respect to this motion. They are: Litter Less, Butt Free Australia—I do not want members to take that the wrong way; it refers to cigarette butts—RoadWatch, Wipe Out Waste, Clean Site, Clean Marina, Sustainable Communities or Tidy Towns, and Sustainable Cities.

I will list the litter items that have been identified nationally as most prominent: McDonald's wrappers and so on, Hungry Jack's wrappers, Coca-Cola containers—less so in South Australia due to the container deposit legislation—Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) wrappers and other material, Streets ice-cream wrappers, and Winfield cigarette packets, although they will be hard to distinguish now because of the plain packaging. Cigarette butts account for 50 per cent of the litter stream, takeaway packaging makes up a further 25 to 30 per cent, and roadside litter accounts for 35 per cent of all litter.

According to KESAB, we now lag behind some of the other states with regard to addressing litter enforcement. KESAB has been promoting a change in legislation or development of a litter act for the past seven years or so, but without success. Victoria has a scheme called Dob in a Litterer, but as we know Australians generally do not like dobbing. Western Australia has a litter report program, but in my visit there last year I was appalled at the amount of litter on the roadsides in Western Australia, and they rejected any container deposit legislation there.

As an aside, I point out that the Northern Territory adopted container deposit legislation which was recently challenged in the court. Unfortunately, the soft drink manufacturers and others won that case, I think on the grounds that to impose a container deposit scheme in the Northern Territory would require machinery which was different to that which exists in other states. It is a classic example of how all these national arrangements and international treaties trip you up when people try to do good things.

KESAB is currently working with the Environment Protection Authority, through an intergovernmental working group, and they are in the process of drafting what has been called a 'local environmental nuisance bill 2013'. I wish them luck because, as I said before, they have been trying without success for eight years to get something.

The purpose of that bill will be to engage local government and KESAB to underpin litter reduction through stronger enforcement, including matters relating to dust and nuisance. According to KESAB, funding options to implement litter reduction campaigns and education initiatives are restricted due to both the South Australian government's minimal funding and reluctance by industry to engage in South Australia through industry grants or program funding.

The packaging industry, through the Packaging Stewardship Forum, has funded litter reduction initiatives in the past 18 months, excluding South Australia. According to KESAB, industry sectors blatantly refuse to engage with South Australia and KESAB in stewardship programs via the Australian Packaging Covenant based on opposition to container deposit legislation. So, they have taken their bat and ball and now, as a result, will not cooperate in respect of broader litter reduction strategies in South Australia. I find it rather pathetic that industry would take that approach.

According to KESAB, there has been a change in consumer habits and behaviour in the past decade, which have contributed to increased litter, including new types of packaging—specifically plastics and paper in combination with paperboard, which are difficult to control—a huge increase in outdoor eateries and events, combined with similar increases in lightweight and potential litter items made from plastic and paper, and drive-through consumer purchasing.

Just on that, I think most members can work out where their fast-food outlets are because, when you get about three kilometres away from one, that is often where a lot of the material is thrown out of the window of a car. KESAB has made attempts in recent times to consult with the takeaway food sector. They highlight the fact that a previous Liberal government in the late 1990s/early 2000s considered a levy, which is what I want to talk about in a moment. KESAB conducts litter counts four times a year—in August, November, February and May—at 151 sites throughout South Australia. As I suggested before, increased litter has been recorded in relation to cigarette butts, plastic and paperboard, snack bags, cups and takeaway containers.

This brings me to one of the points mentioned in the motion, and it relates to the question of whether or not there should be a levy on throwaway containers because they constitute a significant aspect of the litter stream that is left to councils and often volunteer groups. A lot of groups like Lions, Apex and others do a lot of good work, and other groups, including some church groups I know in my area, pick up litter from the roadside. The point is that no-one should have to do that. We should not be dependent on volunteers to clean up someone else's mess.

I think it is worth considering putting a levy on so-called throwaway containers because, as I indicated, a lot of that material comes from fast-food outlets. I challenge anyone to dispute the fact that a lot of that roadside litter in particular has come from a fast-food outlet. I am not sure why the Liberal government in the late 1990s/early 2000s did not pursue that matter further, but I think it is time that this government did. As members know, unless you are a minister, you cannot introduce a financial measure, which is why I have not gone down the path of a bill that would impose a levy on throwaway containers.

It does not have to be a very significant levy. I think 1¢ or 2¢ would generate quite a lot of money that could then be used for programs dealing with litter because councils often pick up a lot of the cost of having to keep their area clean.

A member reminded me that some councils have been talking about reducing the frequency of rubbish collection. That is a very complex issue. In that case at least people are putting what is litter or rubbish in a bin. There is a related aspect of a lot of the packaging we get now. I do not know about other members, but I do not know how grandma could open some of the items that you purchase these days—you need a chainsaw and a jackhammer to get things out. I know there are reasons of food safety and so on, but some of the packaging is quite ridiculous. You only have to look at products like cosmetics, not that I buy many for myself—I would have to buy a truck load. When you open up the package you find inside a small bottle of aftershave or something; it quite ridiculous and unnecessary.

On the question of fortnightly rubbish collection, I heard on the radio this morning a debate about council rates and user pays. In some parts of America they charge according to the weight of the rubbish you put out. The problem with that is that some people will then choose not to put it in the bin and probably dispose of it illegally, and that goes a bit beyond straight litter. I am forever ringing up the City of Onkaparinga or the City of Mitcham to tell them that some idiot has deposited concrete, old tyres, or their marijuana containers, and that costs ratepayers a lot of money, because they have to send out someone with a ute or a truck to pick up stuff that is discarded by idiots who have no regard for others and who therefore impose a significant cost.

As a society we need to look more closely at the whole question of so-called rubbish. At the shopping centre where my office is—and I understand why the owner got rid of it—a man had a compacter for compacting cardboard. He got rid of it because some idiot put a shopping trolley in the compacter, and that was the end of that, and it cost a lot of money. So now all of the waste from the shopping centre—chicken bits, cardboard—all goes to landfill. I think that is terrible in our society, particularly when many residents are doing the right thing and many shopping centres do the right thing. It grieves me when I see cardboard mixed in with meat products and so on all going to landfill where it is going to create methane and certainly not help the issue of global warming.

The litter stream is not usually at that sort of level; it is more smaller items. It would be a good thing for the government, and hopefully the opposition in developing its policies, to have a close look at this question of how our society deals with so-called rubbish or waste. In Singapore they use a lot of it to generate electricity. In some centres in France rubbish goes through special equipment which separates all the items and they get recycled and other material is burnt for generating electricity.

We have an issue of population size and energy demand—I know that—but I think that as a society we could do a lot better. I urge the government (because I cannot do it) to bring in legislation to impose a small levy on throwaway containers; I think that is the way to go. People from all over the state contact me saying they are sick and tired of seeing wrappers and other containers strewn alongside highways. It does not do anything to promote confidence and a feeling of wellbeing in the community when our roads at times look like an extension of a rubbish tip.

I put this motion and I commend once again KESAB for what they have done and what they are doing, and I urge the government and the opposition to move towards some more effective implementation of policies to tackle the question of the litter stream.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (11:44): I move to amend the motion as follows:

Delete all the words after 'strategies.'

The motion would thus read:

That this house calls upon the state government to undertake a review of litter reduction strategies.

I would like to draw your attention to some of the initiatives that have gone on in my electorate of Chaffey. First of all, something that has been front and centre of litter reduction and dealing with waste has been the introduction of the kerbside recycling in the Riverland, which is known as the three-bin system.

There have been partnerships between the three councils in the Riverland—the Renmark Paringa, Berri Barmera and the Loxton Waikerie councils. In the past, the bin collection system has had everything go into it. The large green bin has had all forms of litter, waste, rubbish put into it and has been tagged as general waste, and that has been a very inefficient system, although it has been something that most people have grown up with.

Living in the regions, the majority of the people on properties or out and about have dealt with their green waste. Normally that is usually a burn pile or a pile that is seen to disappear into a hole. I think that these days, as high consumers of packaging and high producers of waste, we have to deal with waste in a better way.

I think the three-bin system is working extremely well. There will be some teething problems with people learning how to use the three-bin system, but it is also about changing people's thinking about their waste. As a young fellow, I grew up with the old galvanised bin that you would put out once a week, with the clang bang as the rubbish man came past, and we have now moved into more friendly ways of dealing with that waste.

One thing that has been noted up in the Riverland particularly is that in the outlying areas of the town and the communities the councils have agreed to a two-bin system. That deletes the green bin which takes away the green waste, because it is seen as a cost-effective measure to have those ratepayers helping with the collection and disposal of green waste, and dealing with green waste can be undertaken in a number of ways.

Nowadays, rather than putting it in a burn pile or burying it in a hole, as I have already mentioned, it is about using that green waste to their advantage, using it in a better way, and that is they will run their mulcher over that green waste or they will put it into a compost pile and use it on their properties, in their gardens, or just for general ground cover, to save ground blow, to preserve some of that loose topsoil that we do see blow from time to time with high winds and under seasonal conditions.

In the Riverland we went through quite a lengthy period of consultation as to where we were going to put a waste transfer station. The councils all got together and it was believed we were going to have a central location at Monash and it was going to be built through consultation. I live very close to where that waste transfer station was going to be and it was in very close proximity to the river, so that was of real concern.

At the moment, councils have decided that we are going to move into transferring all of our waste to Adelaide. That is a sad indictment on moving forward with litter reduction, but I think councils are hoping to work together so that we can have a waste transfer station that can be used by all of the communities.

The Riverland has been very successful in the KESAB initiative, and obviously we have had the towns of Loxton and Waikerie recognised as great examples and been named towns of the year for their cleanliness, tidiness and the way that citizens look after their towns. They have also been recognised for their water efficiency programs and, as I understand it, the Riverland towns are some of the highest solar panel users in the state, which I think is a great initiative. Of course, as I have said, we have won a number of the tidiest town or tidiest street awards, so that is a great reflection on them.

The Berri Pride Day is something else I would like to touch on. In 2010, the Berri Town Beautification Committee was involved in organising a pride day, which involved a two-hour clean up around, particularly, the shopping centres, which are renowned for a lot of rubbish, and also the fast-food chains. Wherever we see fast-food chains, we always see a lot of paper bags and wrappers blowing around the car parks and out into the streets. It really does threaten, particularly, the river system, because a lot of the stormwater or water run-off runs into the river. Hence, that litter is not always captured by grids or grates and flows into the river. It is creating an ongoing problem.

I would like to acknowledge the Lions for some of their clean-up initiatives and collection days. I think they have really been a great service club that has gone out there and been prepared to put their volunteers on the ground and make a real contribution to keeping the towns clean and tidy. It is also showing some responsibility for those who are not as responsible by dropping rubbish, letting it blow around and not managing rubbish. I think that is probably the key factor: how we manage our rubbish and our rubbish collection.

Community groups participating around the region, particularly the Clean Up Australia Day, I think has been a great initiative over a number of years. It gives people some sense of pride that when they look around their community and towns, they have made a contribution and been a part of that exercise, which is keeping their town and community beautiful and clean. It is wearing a badge of pride for giving something back, unlike those, as I said, who are less thoughtful about keeping up their town's beautification project.

The Lions Club is not just looking after the shopping centres and rubbish collection: they also, as some of you might have seen travelling on the highways, have their programs along the highways. Particularly on the federal highways, we have that pass-through traffic that drops in, picks up their lunch, picks up a meal and, sadly, a lot of those takeaway containers always seem to have an element of that product that is discarded. If you buy a burger and you do not like the pickles in it or other products in it, you will put that into the container, and you do not want it sitting in your car for lengths of time while you are travelling, particularly on the Sturt Highway through the Riverland region. You do not want it sitting in there for hours as you are travelling to Adelaide or the other way into Sydney or some of the other inland towns. So, sadly, that rubbish is thrown out the window.

I think the Lions' initiative has been a really good, positive initiative, that is, to have programs where they will travel the highways and pick up that rubbish. We see the result at the end of the day, and that is large truckloads of rubbish that are collected. It is for the benefit of everyone. It is not just for the benefit of towns; it is for the benefit of the environment and of the waterways. I think that is something that really should be commended.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (11:55): I too wish to make a somewhat brief contribution to this motion from the member for Fisher. I support the amendment as moved by the member for Chaffey but understand the intent behind the motion that was originally moved by the member for Fisher. It is not that we disagree with him, it is just that there are some areas where we think there is an opportunity for a review to take place, that it is not necessary for the motion to identify some particular focuses that it is intended to have. That is why we have moved the amendment, and I hope that it is considered by the government, too.

Some good contributions have been made outlining a good history of efforts made in recent years to try to reduce litter as it exists within our society. The member for Fisher talked about KESAB and about Mr John Phillips. From another point of view, I think KESAB has done some excellent work in the time it has been around, and I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to a former employee who is now retired, Mr Ross Swayne.

Ross was the KESAB judge for regional communities and, in a previous role before parliament, I had the great pleasure to be with him a few times when he inspected towns that were nominated. Indeed, he knew more about that community than I (who lived there) did, just about. For a man who visited hundreds and hundreds of communities each year as part of his judging, to try to look at what commitments the community had made to tidiness was exceptional. Other than probably Keith Conlon, who, as part of his television and radio work, is acknowledged as knowing a lot about South Australia, Ross Swayne knew an enormous amount, too.

Tidy Towns is a great opportunity because it works in a couple of different ways. It is not just the physical impression it makes in the community but the social fabric that it brings to a town, too. I know that any community with a Tidy Towns operation is proud of itself and proud of the town in which they live. I have one in the town in which I live at Maitland and, while I do not get there as much as I would like (on the first Saturday morning of each month), I have truly loved actually being part of it because I get the chance to be with predominantly men, and we talk about everything other than politics. It just returns some balance to my day. I actually get home at about midday on that day feeling good about myself because for the last three hours I have been with blokes talking about blokey things other than bloody politics, so it works out really well.

With regard to Tidy Towns, South Australia is proud of what it has done. I am very pleased indeed to represent a community (that being Port Vincent) that in 2002 was identified as Australia's tidiest town. That was just an amazing effort. It was not just a one or two-year effort: it was a group of probably about 50 or 60 people, many of whom had retired to that community but wanted to keep active, and they had done amazing things. They had engaged the younger people and, indeed, homeowners; they had implemented education programs; and they got the school involved. The presentation they made to Mr Dick Olesinski, I think—a national judge from South Australia—was outstanding. To be with them when they were announced as Australia's tidiest town was one of the proudest days of my life. It shows what a community (no matter what size) can do if it believes in what it wants to do, and litter is a really important focus of this.

South Australia is proud of some of the initiatives it has, and the recycling of bottles and cans is an example of that. We have shown the way to the rest of the nation. It is fair to say that they are a bit tardy in following us, but some are looking at it. However, for a long time now it has been very obvious to people who travel a lot between states, when they look at the amount of bottles and cans on the road, who has the better set of regulations and the better opportunity to recycle. That is what litter control is all about. So South Australia should be proud of what it has done and the improvements it has made.

I think it is fair that, as part of this debate in calling for the state government to undertake a review of litter-reduction strategies, Zero Waste is brought into it too. There has been discussion in recent years about the solid waste levy and what that has done to local government and to property owners and to the cost of living, which has increased. Indeed, there is some discussion occurring at the moment about the future of Zero Waste, about the devolvement of responsibility through to local government, about where some of the previous levies have gone and about investment that has occurred in some waste recycling strategies and the improvement of facilities. That is part of a bigger debate, but it should be looked at as part of this motion and the review that is undertaken, too.

I come from the point of view that fees, fines or expiations are not necessarily the answer but society's attitudes are key, so I think any review that is undertaken needs to focus on trying to make people believe that it is not that far to take rubbish to a bin and, by doing that, you are going to create a lot more harmony within a community and make it a better town and a better city. It is an easy thing to believe in and hard to convince some people of, but it becomes an attitude that is a positive opportunity, so I hope that it becomes part of the review that is undertaken, too.

The member for Chaffey has focused a bit on waste collection and, as a former local government person, I understand the issues he has raised and the initiatives that local governments and communities have pursued in recent years and the improvements they have made. It has come as a tremendous cost, though, there is no doubt about that. Society benefits from it, but it is again trying to find a balance between society and environmental visions versus economic reality—and, indeed, it impacts on cost of living pressures that we have all been spoken to about by the communities which we serve.

Recycling has to be part of the solution as well as the disposal issues, the distances in transport and the costs associated with rehabilitation of existing dump sites. Even in my own history, in the communities I come from, I have vivid memories of dumps that were great places to fossick around when I was a young bloke, but they were on the edge of salt lakes or sea water. It is hard to imagine now that you would put a dump in such pristine and environmentally important places, but that is where they have existed in the past. The improvement in requirements has been sound but it has to be part of this longer debate that the member's motion wants to bring forward.

I also look forward to some continued discussion about this, because it is important to the future of our society that we get it right. I reinforce the intent of the member for Fisher: I think it is an honourable one. We think the amendment to the motion actually helps and makes it a little broader in its review. The level of commitment that the community makes will be the distinction between its success or failure. I look forward to the carriage of the motion.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (12:02): I, too, rise to support the motion in its amended form and support the speakers thus far. I guess one of the real challenges of our modern society is dealing with the prepackaged, throwaway culture of not just our food industry but also our society in general. I am old enough, Mr Speaker, and I think you probably are, too, to remember the KESAB program, and I am thinking of way back in the 1970s when you and I were just boys. It was a really successful initiative.

An honourable member: Are you that old?

Mr TRELOAR: Indeed. I was just a boy. In fact, I spent a lot of the 1970s picking up papers in the school yards. If it wasn't that, it was washing buses. I was committed at a very early age to picking up the litter around the school yards, and many of us as schoolchildren did. It was part of our coming to grips and understanding the importance of a neat and tidy surrounding. The KESAB initiative was very successful.

As has been spoken about already today, the first introduction by South Australia of the recycling of bottles and cans proved extraordinarily successful. At 5¢ a bottle and 5¢ a can, there was an incentive for people not to throw them away but, rather, to collect them and return them for a bit of small change. It also gave incentive, I guess, for others to walk up and down roadsides and pick up cans and bottles.

I know this was successful because, when visiting other states at around that time, one could not help but notice the amount of litter, particularly bottles and cans, on roadsides in other states. South Australia did not have that problem at the time. It was a wonderful initiative. In more recent years, the refund has gone from 5¢ to 10¢, so it is even more of an incentive.

I guess a lot of the litter we see now on the roadsides and in the streets are plastic and paper items. Those, too, can be recycled these days. There is not the initiative to do that. One of the functions of Zero Waste includes the prevention of litter and driving incentives and a change in culture to minimise that risk.

The member for Goyder spoke about the Tidy Towns competition. I, too, in my electorate have a number of townships that have won awards over the years. There was a time when a lot of the heavy rubbish, even from our regional centres, went to the local tip or rubbish dump usually adjacent to the township and was periodically burnt to reduce the bulk of the dump. The council decided when the wind was right that they would light up the dump. Occasionally it got away. It certainly was very effective in reducing the bulk within the dump but, of course, it had detrimental effects on the atmosphere around.

I remember my grandfather saying when he was on the District Council of Lower Eyre Peninsula—once again, I am going back to the 1970s. He suggested to me as a boy that one of the great challenges of the modern world would be dealing with the rubbish and litter and waste that occurred from our First World society, and what an insight he had at that time.

Councils have moved, as the member for Chaffey said, to centralised tips and often combined efforts with other councils to centralise their rubbish deposit site, often at great distance from the townships they service, to meet the demands of the environment and the demands of modern day legislation. Taking household and garden waste to those dumps can be expensive. It is often many dollars to deposit a trailer load or a ute load, depending on the size, in the local tip. The reality is that councils have been forced into a position where they need to recover some of their costs. One of the unintended consequences of that, I guess, is that people tend to dump their rubbish along the roadside, in the scrub and in out of the way places, but of course it remains a problem, an eyesore and is detrimental to the surrounding landscape.

Some of the things we need to consider in this modern world is the disposal of things such as the electronic gadgetry of which there are myriad, and I am not just thinking about old computers and old phones but also television sets and all those things that we strive for and aspire to in the modern world which also have a limited life. In the case of mobile phones they have a very limited life, and often after two or three years we are looking to change them over and dispose of them. So, these are the challenges we have. In the old days the challenges were with old tyres, car batteries, chemical containers, all those dirty products that we were dealing with at the time.

One of the real initiatives of the chemical industry and local government combined is that one or two days a year at a central depository farmers, who use a lot of chemicals in modern farming systems, can return their empty containers in a safe and considered place.

I have been fortunate over the years to have travelled somewhat and you cannot help but make comparisons between Australian cities, particularly the city of Adelaide and other cities around the world. In the old days an example I would give within Australia is that Adelaide was recognised, and I believe this to be true, as a much cleaner place than any other city in Australia. Melbourne was a good example. We often used to say how dirty Melbourne looked in comparison to Adelaide. I suspect the other cities have made some headway towards standards which in Adelaide we have considered long to be the norm.

Cities around the world have addressed their litter problems and many have much larger populations than we do and have pressures that are much greater because of that large population. Generally, cities around the world, particularly in the First World countries, are doing very well. In fact, I suspect that here in Adelaide, here in South Australia, here in our Australian cities, we are actually going to have to do a little bit better again to set out standards well above and beyond what other cities are doing.

It can be done. In fact, I was walking down King William Street this morning and noticed, not realising that this motion was going to come up, the amount of rubbish that was blowing up and down King William Street. There was small litter, such as papers, lolly papers, drink containers occasionally, and hamburger wrappers. Of course, in this day and age, as a population we eat a lot of takeaway generally, and the wrappers are always an issue. It is not hard to put it in a bin. I think it is about changing the attitude of our citizens to understand that dropping their litter it is not at all helpful. I tend to call it rubbish; 'litter' is a relatively new word in our language. I prefer 'rubbish' still—certainly, I prefer 'rubbish' to 'garbage' as a term.

We need to change the attitude of our citizens, our general population, so that they understand the consequences of dropping a piece of rubbish or litter, such as a cigarette butt, God forbid, because that still does go on; cigarette packets are still dropped. Ultimately, it is washed down the gutter and ends up in a place not at all helpful to the broader environment.

Just on a local issue in the electorate of Flinders, I would say that one of the things that has been topical in the last two or three years is marine debris, and I will touch on that briefly in the minute remaining. Certainly, with the increase in aquaculture efforts around the coast—and I cannot blame aquaculture entirely because there is increased shipping generally—we have noticed that there has been an increase in marine debris on our pristine beaches, which we are so very proud of.

I guess the question is: who ultimately takes responsibility for this? In the first instance, it must be the person or place where that debris was discarded or lost. Of course, I must congratulate the local community and some of the local industry for their efforts in going out there and having a busy bee or a working bee, walking up and down beaches and collecting many and varied items of discarded marine debris; in some cases, it amounts to a few hundred kilograms. Ultimately, we need to get to a position where that does not need to occur, but I congratulate those who are involved with the effort.

The Hon. J.D. HILL (Kaurna) (12:12): I thank the member for Fisher for putting this item on the agenda. I want to make a few comments about litter management. I am not completely sold on the idea that we need a review of litter reduction strategies because I think we have a pretty good understanding of what works and what does not work, but I would like to put a bit of perspective on this.

As you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker, the late Glen Broomhill was the minister for the environment who introduced container deposit legislation (CDL) into South Australia. The Dunstan government, in the 1970s, proposed the measure, having developed an understanding of it from its implementation in Portland, Oregon. It was introduced in that state following a citizens-initiated referendum. So, one of these most progressive bits of legislation, which some would still call socialism or nanny state interference, was, in fact, introduced in Portland on the basis of a referendum caused by citizens pushing it onto the ballot paper. So, it was a measure which was introduced in that state first, and it has now spread right around the world.

South Australia had to go to an election a couple of times, because the conservative members of this and the other place voted against the CDL a number of times. Now I am pleased to note that they are amongst its biggest fans, and I guess that demonstrates how conservatism works: they oppose, they oppose, they oppose; something changes, and then they defend, defend, defend—and we have seen plenty of examples of that in our history.

The tram extension, which was opposed by the conservatives in this place and the other place and publicly, is now in place and terribly successful and, if anybody were to interfere with it, I guess they would oppose, oppose, oppose. Once again, of course, the tram extension, and the thinking around that, was inspired by visits to Portland, Oregon. Portland, Oregon has superb social, environmental and economic policies, and there is a lot to learn from that place. I do not say that of all American states, but Oregon has very advanced thinking when it comes to social and environmental infrastructure, and our state has learnt a lot over the decades from Oregon.

Sadly, we are still the only state to have implemented CDL, and we have now had it in place for over 30 years. As the member for Flinders says, you can see it everywhere you look in our community. We have the cleanest streets, the cleanest roads, the cleanest public spaces because we have an incentive for people not to throw their waste containers into the public spaces.

The Northern Territory just last week, or the week before, had its legislation to introduce a similar measure in that territory overturned through the Federal Court—a great tragedy, in my view—and it just shows the extent the beverage industry will go to in order to oppose this measure. They have opposed it all the way along. Every single step of the way, the beverage industry in Australia has opposed the use of this legislation.

They make all sorts of incredible claims about what it does to litter management generally, to waste management generally, but also about what it apparently does, or they allege it does, to the cost of their product. It is just arrant nonsense, and I hope that the commonwealth will intervene to ensure that the Territory is able to continue with its legislation. We are protected because we have had our legislation for so long that more contemporary arrangements which worked across Australia did not apply in this case.

As the member said, the levy was doubled a few years ago. I am no longer the environment minister, but when I was I know that the levy at 5¢ was just too low to motivate people to the same extent that it had originally, and doubling it to 10¢ did seem to kick it along again. I assume that is still working. I guess at some future stage the levy will have to be put at a more reasonable level. It does work very well for containers, and one of the things I was looking at as environment minister was the extension of the levy to not just drinks containers but to all containers. It seemed to me that if you could have it on a can of soft drink there was no reason you could not have it on a can of dog food or baked beans.

The argument, I suppose, is that the CDL was introduced to maintain management over litter and that it had morphed into an environmental or recycling strategy. We have the lowest level of such containers going into the waste stream. The level of recycling in this state of soft drink bottles and cans and so on is very high, so I thought if we could extend it to other containers we may increase the recycling of those materials as well. I think that is one possible area it could be extended into.

I think there is a problem, though, with the implicit notion in this motion that a levy could be introduced on throwaway containers. I think the member is probably thinking about hamburger packages and chip packages—the wrappers and cardboard boxes that are fairly ephemeral. Often people drive into McDonald's, Hungry Jack's, or one of those chains, get their gear, eat the food and then, because the car starts to smell, a couple of kilometres down the road they throw the stuff out of the window.

Work has been done that has looked at the pattern of distribution of waste associated with particular retail outlets of that type, and you do not see a lot of waste around the immediate vicinity of the shop, though you do see some. Typically, you see it a few kilometres down the road—as long as it takes to eat a hamburger and bolt a bag of french fries and then they just get turfed out of the window.

I did look and I know that Zero Waste or its precursors have looked at how you can manage that kind of waste. There needs to be some sort of responsibility placed on the organisations which produce it, in my view. The reason I think a levy will not work is that the economics of that would be very difficult. The reason the levy works for containers is that there is some inherent value in the material that then gets recycled, and that supports the chain. If you were to have a levy in place, who would collect the dirty wrappers (which would be smelly)? How would they be managed? There are all those kinds of issues.

The Hon. R.B. Such interjecting:

The Hon. J.D. HILL: I am just saying that there are inherent difficulties trying to apply the container deposit legislation model to something that is inherently very different. In my view there should be an obligation on the companies that produce and sell products using this kind of wrapper to look after it in the community, and to make sure that it is collected. I am not sure how you would do that; I suppose, theoretically, you could put up the price of the product, create a fund and then employ people to go and pick up wrappers.

The Hon. R.B. Such: That is what the levy would do.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: I understand the member for Fisher is arguing that, but there is something inherently wrong about a society that funds people to have a job that involves picking up someone else's litter. We really need a community where we do not throw litter away. I am not sure whether doing what the member is suggesting would make us a better community.

Mrs Geraghty interjecting:

The Hon. J.D. HILL: As the member for Torrens says, schools are good at teaching children about such matters. I congratulate the member for putting it on the agenda. I think it is good to have a debate about these issues—

The Hon. S.W. Key interjecting:

The Hon. J.D. HILL: I think we all went to that school, and had to pick up litter. When I was a school teacher it was part of my job to go around and help clean up yards, and you would say to children, '20 pieces of litter, go and find them', and of course they would find one big bit and rip it up 10 times, or whatever, the way children do.

However, I digress. I do thank the member for Fisher for raising this issue. I think it is worth considering, although I do make the point that I think a lot of these issues have been considered. It might be interesting to try to get a report from the minister as to the current thinking along these lines, and I assume that during the course of the debate that will happen.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (12:21): I rise to speak on the motion, and I commend the member for moving it. Even though I support this motion, I had some reservations about the introduction of a levy on throwaway containers and, therefore, I very much welcomed the amendment moved by the member for Chaffey, because it does express our sentiments. I do not think it is practical at all, at this point in time, to put that there. There are other ways. The word 'levy' frightened me, but as the honourable member just said, I think there are other ways to address this problem and access the manufacturers.

I have been a long-time advocate of campaigns and issues aimed at reducing litter—which has surprised many people, considering my past. We live in such a beautiful state, and the last thing we want is for its beauty to be overshadowed by litter. I applaud the people of South Australia for their continued effort to reduce litter and for embracing recycling. In fact, traditionally South Australia has a record of being the litter-free state.

As a past member and chair of an ERD committee, we did two inquiries into waste management in South Australia. They were very good reports, and I commend them to the house. I know the member for Ashford was on one of those. It is fair to say that people are more conscious about the environment now than they were five or 10 years ago, very much so. The message is being heard in schools, and I know that I am certainly very much more conscious. Even when you are standing around in the community, waiting for a bus or whatever, when you see litter what do you do? You automatically pick it up. I always do, as long as there is a bin reasonably close.

The message is being heard in schools and communities and by the stakeholders, and I believe that they are supporting and encouraging the adoption of litter prevention strategies and reducing that habit. In my younger days, as a local government councillor—many years ago, sir, 32 to be exact—we regularly fired up the local dump and, if the wind was in the wrong direction, you got a good whiff of your own rubbish. I got lots of phone calls. I can say that it was quick and easy to get rid of the rubbish that way, and cheap, but I am sorry, it was not worth the environmental hassle. We have come a long way from there; that does not happen anymore.

However, while I believe that, as a state, we are trying to do the right thing, it appears that we need to be doing more. We need to be forever vigilant about improving this. Recent data in a report entitled '2012 Rubbish Report' looked at the litter, on average, that was collected on Clean Up Australia Day as compared to 2011. The most common items picked up were plastic and paper items. It makes me wonder if we are becoming complacent or just lazy. This highlights the need for a review of litter reduction strategies rather than a levy and for other initiatives to be looked at to encourage and stimulate a greater response from members of the public.

According to a report by KESAB, over the past two or three decades the extent of packaging and litter stream has changed through an increase in the range of products and point-of-sale services available to customers. The combination of this contemporary packaging and a change in lifestyle and behaviour appears to be resulting in an increase in rubbish levels in public places—particularly in bubble packaging. Take, for example, Mad March here in Adelaide, just finished. Of course litter counts are going to rise with huge increases in numbers of people. Data has highlighted the link between convenience and takeaway products.

In 1975 South Australia introduced its container deposit legislation, as we have just heard. What a proactive initiative this was. The legislation was developed as a key method for reducing litter and was, and still is, a part of South Australia's waste minimisation strategy. The deposit on containers was increased from 5¢ to 10¢ in 2008 and a move was also made to include flavoured milk containers, which we actually did. Research indicates this legislation has resulted in a significant reduction in beverage container litter.

I cannot let the opportunity go by at this point in time to remind the house that I have been to many national conferences of public works and environment and at every one I have raised this matter of CDL. All the delegates there say, 'Yes, yes, yes, we will go home and change our government's point of view on this.' When we come back 12 months later, what is there to report? Nothing.

The Hon. S.W. Key: Northern Territory.

Mr VENNING: I was encouraged, though, that the Northern Territory did introduce and was implementing this strategy, but of course because of the federal government and its technicality of the High Court it was rubbed out. That has to be overcome, because I do believe—but I have not given up and I have a reputation. If I went to a conference in the Northern Territory and I did not raise it, they would be disappointed. All I can say is—

Mr Pengilly: You won't be going to any more conferences.

Mr VENNING: No, I think my run has probably come to an end in relation to those. I was very sad to see the Northern Territory legislation fail. We have been doing it for 30 years. It is evident as you drive around. We have a property with a large section of main road in it and you just don't see cans there. You often see chaps out with their pushbikes or scooters with a bag, picking them up. That is what it is all about; it really does work.

In September 2012 the EPA commissioned a survey to look at the support, awareness and participation for the container deposit legislation. This report found that awareness and support is extremely high and the perception is that the scheme has been effective in reducing recyclable containers going into landfill, reducing litter in South Australia and encouraging the recycling of drink containers.

On a recent trip to Europe I could not help but notice the amount of litter that was in the streets, particularly in places like Paris. I was there to meet the EC commissioner. I was appalled at the cigarette butts and the rubbish in the city. It just makes you realise and appreciate how clean our city here in Adelaide is. I commend the general public; the average person I think is now highly educated not to throw their butt in the gutter. It still happens, I know, but nowhere near that point. I am extremely cognisant as I squash up my ice coffee container and put it away for recycling. In the old days, what happened to them? You do not see them on the road now either. We squash them up and we get our deposit.

I am very proud that people are doing that. On the back of this successful legislation one could come to the conclusion that extending the legislation to include throwaway containers would also result in a reduction of this form of litter. That is still to be worked out. Our roadsides are littered with throwaway cans, or they were. Let us give people an incentive to recycle rather than to litter and to change the packaging procedures. I prefer to change people's attitudes to throwaway containers rather than impose a penalty such as a levy. Yes, if all else fails, but try to further educate our people first as the best option.

As the member for Schubert, I am proud of the towns and communities in my electorate; they are always clean. I know the Tidy Towns competition had a fair bit to do with this change in attitude. The locals work to keep them that way and they are very proud of their towns.

Councils have had an important role in my electorate, with the strategic placement of bins and regular collections. The communities of the Barossa, Mannum, Mount Pleasant—all those towns are very tidy; I have never had reason to ring or comment to the council about them being otherwise.

Segregation of our rubbish is most important, as our report found: hard waste, no problems in landfill, putrescible and compostable, and then recyclables. Yes, it does all add to the cost but if we all do our bit at our end, the consumer end, it will make it so much better. I support the member and this motion with that amendment, and also call upon the state government to undertake a review of further litter reduction strategies.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (12:30): I rise to also support the amendment as put by the member for Chaffey, following the member for Fischer's motion. The whole issue of rubbish in South Australia is something that I think we can be reasonably proud of. Probably the best thing that ever happened was the container deposit legislation, and it is commented upon. A lot of interstate visitors come to my electorate and if I am speaking to them they invariably comment on how clean the sides of the roads are. Almost without exception they are staggered at the cleanliness of our roadsides. When you explain the system that is in place they say, 'Why don't we do it here?'

I do not know whether it will ever happen but I notice that companies like Coca-Cola and others are objecting to putting this in place in other states, which I think is a pity. As indicated by the member for Schubert, and I think some others, it has been an enormous fundraising initiative for many individuals and groups, and organisations have done very well out of it over the years. It is something that I think we can be proud of.

The whole issue of waste disposal is an enormous problem, particularly for local councils in South Australia. Suffice to say that if you revert back to what they have always traditionally been told that what they do is look after roads, rates and rubbish, they have huge responsibilities in the way of waste disposal.

Just recently, it has been interesting to note that there are a number of councils, including I think one in my electorate, trying to buck the system and go back to fortnightly pick-up. I think that is ridiculous. They cannot do that; they cannot change it; it is just point-blank ridiculous and they are getting above their status in life, in my view. They need to remember what the agreement is. All they are trying to do is save money.

We are a throwaway society: everything comes in packaging and you take things out and everything is thrown straight into the bin, so the very idea of trying to go to a fortnightly collection, I think, would lead to appalling consequences, particularly with food scraps, for mums and dads with large families or kids per se. I think it would be a huge step in the wrong direction and I think the local government sector is just going to have to come to grips with it. Whether or not parliament has made rules that make it difficult for the local government sector to abide by is something we probably could have another debate about.

I would like to go back to my electorate where the City of Victor Harbor council gets a good rap around the ears fairly regularly in the local paper. I know that when I took on this role some seven years ago I was pleasantly surprised at what a clean place Victor Harbor was. I had Goolwa at the time, as well, but particularly Victor Harbor was always clean and tidy. Council staff work exceptionally hard and they achieved a significant award towards the end of last year, which I think speaks volumes. I know that Goolwa, which is in the member for Hammond's electorate, has now also won the Tidy Town award. Local community groups in some of these towns are very proud of keeping them that way.

I think it is a bit of a pity that Zero Waste seems as if it is going to be put to bed, for lack of better terminology. I recall that the member for Kaurna and I, around nine years ago, perhaps—when he was the minister for environment, and I was mayor on Kangaroo Island—did the first plastic bag free town in South Australia. That was the aim, but I think it sort of fell over. It seemed like a good idea at the time, but it was all too difficult to accomplish. We have probably moved on a fair way in relation to the removal of plastic bags. It was a bit of a prototype. The minister and I sat there and looked extremely important and had our pictures taken, and then everybody belly-ached about not being able to use plastic bags anymore, so nothing much changes.

I think Zero Waste has been particularly good, and I have an enormous amount of respect for Mr Vaughan Levitzke, the CEO, who was very helpful. I would also like to mention the marine environment because both parts of my electorate are surrounded by a lot of coastline. The fishing industry needs to be applauded for the efforts they have made in trying to reduce the number of plastic bags and bait straps that have gone into the sea.

Once upon a time, the bait straps on the cray boat were cut and chucked over the side. They went out of their way to try to do the right thing by bringing all their bait bags and straps back ashore and putting them all in the recycling section, so I think they deserve a bit of credit for what they have done. The poor old fishermen are forgotten fairly regularly—after all, the state government is trying to wipe them out with marine park zones anyway. They are very responsible, and they do a good job.

The whole issue of rubbish is not going to go away. We need to deal with it, and it is going to be a problem for years to come. We are going to have to have a constructive relationship with the local government sector about where it does go, and it would concern me that if too much added cost pressure were put on local government they might buckle under it. But it is one of their prime responsibilities; indeed, the Fleurieu Waste Resource Authority covers my electorate, including Kangaroo Island. They do all the rubbish operations there, and the rubbish from Kangaroo Island all comes back to the mainland, which is a significant achievement. I might add that if you are on a ferry when the rubbish truck is on there, it is not all that pleasant a trip!

The Hon. R.B. Such: You know which way the wind is blowing.

Mr PENGILLY: You do know which way the wind is blowing, you do, yes—and you get up to the front of the boat. That was brought about by an edict out of a court case, but it has actually worked out quite well. There is no landfill depot on the island (there is a waste resource depot), and it all comes up here at a huge cost. The Fleurieu Waste Resource Authority is working well, and they do a bit of finetuning from time to time.

I say to the member for Fisher that it was a good idea to bring this in. I think it has generated some good discussion. It has probably generated more from country members than I have heard from the other side on this, but maybe other members want to speak on it. I hope that the house will support the member for Chaffey's amendment. I think that it brings the motion into a bit more context and will be much more useful. I look forward to listening to other speakers, or reading their contributions in due course, and await the outcome of the motion.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (12:38): I am pleased to make some comments in relation to the amended motion moved by the member for Chaffey that this house calls upon the state government to undertake a review of litter reduction strategies. This is a fairly broad observation, I guess, but rubbish, litter, waste, whatever sort of title you want to give it, has been an issue for many centuries, really, since population growth and density have occurred within cities, and the management of rubbish or litter or waste has become an increasing issue that governments and administrations have had to deal with.

In relation to the container deposit legislation that was introduced here in South Australia in 1975—some time ago now—I think every speaker so far in the house has acknowledged, and I join with them in acknowledging, what a success the scheme has been here in South Australia. We lead the nation, I think, in relation to managing this type of waste, particularly container waste.

Other members have highlighted as well that you only have to travel interstate to really see the clear evidence of how well our system works. Not many people travel by train these days, but my family and I, maybe five years ago, caught the train from Adelaide to Melbourne. It was then the Overland service, so it was an evening/night transport service. I understand now it is a daytime service from the morning to the evening, but when we caught it, it ran during the evening and the night, arriving in Melbourne in the early morning.

Some of those suburbs along the rail corridor in Melbourne were strewn with rubbish. It was quite an unsightly scene to witness. Immediately, I thought, 'You don't see that in South Australia.' You do not see the rubbish along our transport corridors, our rail corridors, our streets, our highways and byways as you do in other states. I think that is clear evidence that our system works. Really, I think we are the envy of other states.

Having that system in place, I think South Australians are litter-conscious. In our district in the Hills area, I see people walking along the road and they have a container, such as a plastic bag, and they actually pick up rubbish as they walk along the road. I do the same thing if I go for a walk around the public golf course which is adjacent to our home property. Walking around there or walking along the road to try to maintain some level of wellbeing and fitness, I will pick up rubbish and the like along the road verge, because it is unsightly. Driving along the roads, rubbish—papers and drink containers and the like—strewn along the road verge is unsightly but here in South Australia it is not to anywhere near the same extent as it is in other states.

I remember that when I was a younger person before the container deposit legislation came in, just at the time that it was coming in, there was some conjecture, some debate, and people saying, 'You can't make money out of rubbish.' I think we have proven that to be quite false because I know some people who own and operate the refuse stations where you actually take your drink containers, beer bottles and the like and get a refund on those used containers, and if those people who own and operate those businesses are operating the business properly, they make a very good living from that business venture.

Also, it provides some pocket money for people. My family collects soft drink bottles and cans and other containers we use that attract the 10¢ refund. We certainly keep the odd beer bottle and can, and every few months I will load them up and take them down to the local centre and get a small amount of money.

However, I think there are perhaps some anomalies in the system. You get a refund on your beer bottles, beer cans, soft drink cans and other containers like that, but you do not get the 10¢ refund on wine bottles. I think there is an anomaly in the system, because if you take wine bottles to the recycling centre they will throw them in a bin and that goes off to a plant that I presume melts them down and makes new glassware from them. As a consequence, we place our used wine bottles in the recycle rubbish bin, because that is obviously the other legitimate alternative place to deposit that type of waste. If there was some assessment in looking at placing the consumer deposit legislation on wine bottles, I think that is worth investigating.

I also understand in relation to some paper-based containers that it depends on the volume of the container as to whether it attracts the 10¢ refund or not. I recall that there was some debate particularly on iced coffee containers. A certain volume of iced coffee container attracted the 10¢ refund, but I think from memory—and I am happy to be corrected on this—the larger volume iced coffee container did not attract the 10¢ refund. I think that is something that may be worth looking at.

I will broaden my comments out in the last minute of time I have. The member for Finniss spoke about local government and its involvement in the collection of litter and waste. I live in the Adelaide Hills Council and I am a ratepayer in the Adelaide Hills Council district. We work on a two-bin system. I know some metropolitan councils have a three-bin system, with one for green waste. If you live in what we call a rural living area like us, we are able to accumulate green waste and burn that obviously in the appropriate season, but in the townships they are not allowed to burn dried green waste in the Adelaide Hills Council district.

The council used to have a hard refuse collection system where you put your larger items that would not fit in your normal two-bin system—your normal rubbish and your recyclable waste bin. They used to provide that hard refuse collection for the bigger items, but they have ceased doing that. From a local ratepayer point of view, I think that is something they could look at reintroducing. They also had a system where they would provide dump passes, so that if you did accumulate larger waste items you could deliver them to a local waste dump. Over recent times they have looked to abolish that and I think that is something they could reintroduce.

Time expired.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (12:48): I rise to support the amended motion. The initial motion was put forward by the member for Fisher, but I will read the amended motion from our side. It states:

That this house calls upon the state government to undertake a review of litter reduction strategies.

I think this should be very wide-ranging. There has been a lot said on both sides of the house about our container deposit legislation and I think that is fantastic and world leading. In 1975, when we introduced the 5¢ can and bottle levy on beer bottles, etc., and soft drink—

The Hon. S.W. Key: A Labor government.

Mr PEDERICK: It was a good move. I will acknowledge good moves.

Ms Thompson: Say 'by the Labor government'.

Mr PEDERICK: No. If the member for Torrens wishes to speak, you can contribute to the debate in your time. I will be happy to hear from the member for Torrens and the member for Mitchell and the member for Ashford and whoever else would like to speak on that side of the house. I also note that the member for Kaurna has already spoken on this subject.

But it is good legislation—let's face it. As people have said in this house, you travel interstate and see the waste, the litter, on the sides of the roads. It is terrible, quite frankly. When we drive around South Australia, we do not have the opportunity to have entirely clean roads, but I drive on a lot of country roads and a lot of highways—the Dukes Highway in particular—to head home to Coomandook.

An honourable member: Dirty car.

Mr PEDERICK: Thank you. Sadly, you still see rubbish thrown out at various places along the road, but let me say this: there is nowhere near the level of litter that you see when you travel interstate. I have been on some long drives right up through Queensland, up to Townsville and Cairns and back. I have driven on various roads through Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria and it is extremely evident that a container deposit scheme like we have here would be extremely helpful.

It should be noted that we raised this to 10¢ and I think that brought it back to the real value of things in general and the worth people place on holding their cans and bottles. I must say that, similar to the member for Kavel, where I live, we collect our cans and bottles. Some things are non-refundable, like plastic milk bottles and also wine bottles, and I think that should be investigated. I have had the odd wine and I have had the odd beer, but we collect everything. It is an incentive for my young boys. I will give a plug for my eldest lad, Mackenzie, who is 12 today, so good on you, mate.

Mrs Geraghty: Happy birthday.

Mr PEDERICK: Happy birthday.

The Hon. R.B. Such: Keep collecting.

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, keep collecting. I tell you what: young Mackenzie knows the value of money. If you ever want to get him to spend his pocket money, no, that is not going to happen—that is in the bank so he can buy his Lamborghini one day. He has got a little way to go.

Mr van Holst Pellekaan interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Absolutely. Yes, it comes with a Scottish name. Be that as it may, I think that story shows how we have instilled in our family the need to collect the bottles and cans and clean up. We put all of the different criteria in their different 44 gallon drums or 200 litre drums, for the more modern minded. We put the beer bottles in separate drums, we put the wine bottles in drums and we use woolpacks to put the cans in or plastic bottles that you can now get the 10¢ refund on.

I can tell you that, when you load up a tandem trailer of empty containers, which takes quite a long time to fill—it could take a couple of years to get a load—it makes it very worthwhile. My kids get the benefit of that cash, that goes towards their pocket money and for anything they would like to buy. I think it gives good lessons in keeping the place clean. As I said, it is not just the cans and bottles that you can get deposits on, I think the ones that you do not get deposits on certainly need investigating.

In the broader picture with regard to litter reduction strategies, there has certainly been some debate around Zero Waste and I have seen the difference in waste collection over time. Coming from a small rural community, the Coomandook dump used to be on a gravel road, but it is now on the edge of the Dukes Highway because the highway moved. You can see where the old one was just outside of Coomandook. On this side of Coomandook is the place where the old dump has been filled over. The new site is out further east.

Years ago, big pits were dug out which would last many years because you would just tip all and sundry in and light them up, and those pits would last many years. Rubbish and litter handling has moved on to more modern methods, and some people argue with those methods. My local dump at the back of Coomandook, the Yumali dump—

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Well, refuse station, transfer station, whatever you want to call it. It has moved a long way, but now it is just a transfer station and there is a whole host of green bins and some bigger bins that can be lifted into trucks, and you have to separate your waste. It is reasonably expensive if you want to get rid of individual items such as televisions and other electrical items that have blown up. That can be a deterrent for people to get rid of rubbish the appropriate way.

I know that with all good intent these things have been put in place, with these transfer stations, but my local rubbish depot is available only once a month; sometimes we utilise the Coonalpyn transfer station, which is open every Sunday, which is quite handy. Now that I have moved back to the farm after renting a house just down the road at Ki Ki—and have been back at the farm for a few years now—we are on the run and we do get a weekly pick-up, which I am very pleased to get—very pleased to get—but our bigger rubbish has to be taken to the transfer station.

Preceding that, when I was off the rubbish pick-up run at Ki Ki, I tried through the council to get a community pick-up bin placed on the Dukes Highway at Ki Ki, but that was not made available. I know that people who are on the rubbish run now have to store their litter for a while until they make a trip to get rid of their refuse, and that is highly unhealthy. You only need to hear the debate about people in Adelaide—and rightly so—complaining about the fact that some councils have been discussing whether they have a fortnightly pick-up. You can imagine having your rubbish stored in a shed for two months, and I know some people do this. I used to do it because I just was not home enough to take the time to take the rubbish away and did not have the opportunity to get rid of it, but I must say that things have improved markedly in the last few years.

In the scheme of things, we have to find a way so that we do not also get illegal dumping where people just dump their goods—it might be a forest area or in a scrub area—because people do not want to pay the relevant dumping fee, and they can be extremely serious. Recently in Victoria I ran into a person who lives in Sunshine in Victoria. If they want to get rid of a mattress it costs $100; so, guess what? Down the side of the road is where the mattresses land. You see it in the city and you see it in outlying towns.

Mr Sibbons: Asbestos.

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, asbestos, as the member for Mitchell says—a whole range of things. We have to come up with a way in the parliament to make it viable, and I mean viable each way. You do not want to make it too expensive so that people do not do the right thing, but we also need to look at ways, as I suggested, to bring wine bottles and plastic bottles into the strategy of the container deposit scheme. We have a great state; we have a beautiful state. It is good legislation and, as I said earlier in my contribution, you can certainly see it when you travel throughout other states in our great country. I urge everyone to work on this proposal, and may the amended proposal get up.

Mr BROCK (Frome) (12:59): I would also like to contribute to the motion of the member for Fisher and also the amendment of the member for Chaffey. I just want to add my thoughts. The first suggestion for a container deposit levy, as I understand it—and I may be incorrect—was made by the previous mayor of the Port Pirie City Council, Ted Connelly, to the government of the day. He then turned out to be the new speaker in the house when he ran for parliament as an independent Labor supporter. So, the Port Pirie council were the instigators of putting the container deposit levy to the state government of the day, and here we are now talking about it. It has been a great success for the last 35 years, so I am very proud to be able to get up and talk about it.

The container levy has been in for many years. When it started, it was 5¢, which was pretty attractive at the time, but as the cost of living went up it was not as attractive for people. Now it has gone up to 10¢, and that 10¢ is a lot of money. It has now gone from bottles to paper and throwaway containers, which is fantastic. We all collect our cans. Even in my own situation, we have a collection point at the back of our house. My partner, Lynn, has a hairdressing salon which she operates from the old garage—which we have council permission to do. I just want to make that very, very clear. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debated adjourned.

[Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00]