HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-07-24 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 22 July 2008. Page 3905.)

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (15:47): I indicate that I will be the lead speaker for the opposition on this bill, which has been debated at length after its introduction in the Legislative Council. The opposition supports the bill in its current form.

I do not want to take up a lot of time, but I would like to put some issues on the record. The effort of South Australia in 1977 to introduce progressive legislation such as the 5¢ deposit in the container deposit legislation for non-refillable containers was a very good move. Originally entitled the Beverage Container Act, it is now incorporated into the Environment Protection Act. South Australia holds the title of being the only state in Australia, regrettably, that has adopted this legislation.

In reading some of the documents included in the file, I note that some of the other states are looking at introducing similar legislation, and I think Western Australia now has a 20¢ deposit. Minister Gago, when holding the environment portfolio, campaigned quite extensively in this area. It is a progressive step, and South Australia has certainly benefited from it over the last 31 years.

Not only has it improved enormously our recycling rate of these items but it has also allowed South Australia to be a much cleaner state and to lead by example, compared with many other states of Australia, in what we are prepared to do. While it might be said that this is an expensive effort to bring in now, due to the infrastructure that may be associated with it, there is no doubt that the state has benefited from it.

The scheme was amended in 2003 to cover a wider range of beverages, including plain milk, wine and fruit juice. Containers of over one litre were exempt, but others were included. I think something like 7,000 different products are included in the scheme, and around 1,600 are being added each year.

Mr Goldsworthy interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: I have just been warned by the member for Kavel not to talk about too many things—but too bad.

Mr Pederick interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: We are sharing information, and that is important. In reading some of the comments made by the Hon. Michelle Lensink, in her research on the bill as the shadow environment spokesperson, there was a lot of concern expressed by some of the recycling centres about hoarding because of the timing, that is, from 1 September the deposit refund will automatically increase from 5¢ per item to 10¢ per item.

There was a fear that a lot of people would hoard items and deposit the money after 1 September so they could receive a far greater remuneration. Based on figures that I have seen, in this state, about 470 million items per year have been recycled. Because of hoarding and delays in actually processing these refundable items—which could take some weeks to get them through the initial return depots and then to the larger super collection facilities; it might take at least a month in some cases, and up to three months—there was some fear that, with the additional cost being imposed upon the higher level of refund compared to the amount paid prior to 1 September, it could cost between about $3 million and $5.8 million.

When change such as this is implemented, it is hard to do it in such a way that it does not affect the industry. There is no doubt that currently, when the items are being sold, the scheduled amount is being paid. The doubling of the refund to 10¢ from 1 September creates some complications, but I have read some correspondence from the Department for Environment and Heritage stating that it has considered all these issues and it has determined that swift implementation from 1 September is the best option. Let us hope that that works out.

There has been considerable concern also about large amounts of refundable items being brought in from interstate. I think that would predominantly affect the South-East community of South Australia, where items have been brought in from Victoria. In our shadow cabinet discussions, we have heard about truckloads of materials coming over. I note that this bill introduces fines for that and, where more than 3,000 containers are returned within a 48-hour period, there is an option, I think, to refuse it or to pay a lesser amount to ensure that the opportunity is not rorted. It is a concern.

It is recognised that, over the years, the 5¢ deposit has been a great fundraising opportunity for a lot of small community groups. Scout groups have been known to do it for many years. I know of sporting clubs and communities where I have lived have done it. There is no doubt that young children have used it as an opportunity to supplement their allowance from their parents. Kids have ridden their bikes over enormous distances to collect cans. I note that some older people in the community also do it regularly.

Mr Goldsworthy interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: There is some malicious gossip going on behind me. It has been a great initiative by South Australia. I recognise that the debate on this bill in the Legislative Council offered some varying opinions. The shadow minister informed me that she had considered introducing amendments, but decided to withdraw them. The industry has been quite strong in its representations to our shadow minister that they wanted the bill to pass through both houses of parliament during this session to allow the legislation to be implemented before 1 September. So, it is a positive step. With those few words, I confirm my personal support for the bill and that of the opposition, and we look forward to contributions from other members about issues that I have not yet canvassed.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (15:53): I am very pleased that the member for Goyder has left me some scope to make some remarks in relation to container deposits. From discussions within our own ranks and from comments made by members of the broader community, I know that the system we have in South Australia is really the envy of the nation. Other states wish that they had bitten the bullet, so to speak, and introduced this container deposit scheme. As I see from my notes, the scheme was introduced back in 1977.

It has been in place for 31 years. As I said, I understand that the other states in the nation wished that they had taken those same steps 30-odd years ago. You can see the benefit of this scheme in relation to the general amenity of the South Australian countryside and also in and around the metropolitan area compared to other states. Our roadsides and our streets are relatively clean. I know the KESAB (Keep South Australia Beautiful) program has had much to do with that, too. You only have to travel to the eastern states to see the amount of rubbish, litter, garbage—whatever you like to call it—laying around the streets and the countryside compared to our state. Obviously the scheme we have in South Australia has gone a long way to bringing about the benefits that we enjoy.

I certainly participate in the system. I keep all our containers that we use—stubbies, children's cool drink bottles and items such as that—on which there is a 5¢ refund. I keep them in our garage and, when I think I have a trailer load, I take them to the recycle depot and get enough money to buy some petrol for my lawnmower and things like that. It is a saving. What do they say—if you look after the cents, the dollars look after themselves.

I imagine that this legislation was relatively controversial 30-odd years ago. I have not gone back to look at the debates that took place in this place and the other place, but I imagine that, as with most of these schemes where there is a financial impact or a monetary implication, there would have been some controversy around it. As the member for Goyder, our lead speaker on this side of the house has indicated, we are certainly supporting the legislation. There has been considerable discussion concerning these new proposals but, in general terms, we do support what the government is proposing in relation to the container deposit legislation. We have seen tangible evidence of improvement to our state's amenity and, as such, we are pleased to support it.

Dr MCFETRIDGE (Morphett) (15:59): I also speak in support of this bill, and I do so with great sincerity and passion because, with the electorate of Morphett being a beachside suburb, certainly littering—everything from fast-food containers to cigarette butts—is a real issue. Anything we can do to reinforce in people's minds that not only is littering an offence but you can also make money out of keeping empty containers is something we should applaud. Twenty-five years ago, I was working for an airline flying racehorses around the world and we took a load of horses into Kota Kinabalu in Sabah. We were cleaning out—

Mr Griffiths interjecting:

Dr MCFETRIDGE: I did not bring home cans, no. We went to get some soft drink from a little store which was on the side of the airport. There were bottles of this Jukapoy Joy juice. I remember the stuff now because of the name—Jukapoy Joy juice. The guy who was selling it would not give us the bottles.

An honourable member interjecting:

Dr MCFETRIDGE: It was purely soft drink—although the name would suggest it might be worth a bit more. He would not give us the bottles but we insisted on taking the bottles. Some 25 years ago they valued these bottles so much that they wanted to recycle them by pouring the drink into a plastic bag and giving us the plastic bag with a straw it—and that is how you would walk off with the soft drink. We said, 'No, we don't do that where we come from,' so the guy followed us around for the next half an hour until we finished the drinks and gave him back the bottles.

Recycling is not new to some other parts of the world because they value the materials, never mind the potential to make money out of those materials. In fact, in South Australia we have been doing this for a number of years. If members drive across the border they would see the difference. Why other states have not learnt from our experience is just amazing; it is stupid. There is a need to enforce in people's minds that it is all about the environment. Whether it is global warming, recycling or container deposit legislation, it is all about the environment. It is just so important to give people—like the member for Kavel with his trailer load of cans going to the recycle depot—a small reward for recycling in the form of a refund. My daughter keeps all the cans—and I drink far too much soft drink—in order to recycle them. It is so important that we pay attention to recycling so that we are not littering.

There is a real issue with cigarette butts at the beach. I wish there was some way in which we could put into people's minds, other than fining them—and we do need to increase the fines—that dropping a cigarette butt is a serious littering offence. It offends me when I walk along the beach and see a beach full of cigarette butts. It is an atrocious thing to see.

The fast food people need to be more aware of what they are doing. Certainly, I hope that people who buy fast food are aware of the damage they are doing to the environment, as well as the straight out littering and untidiness they cause by dropping fast food containers. It is something to which they should pay attention. I get quite upset and angry when I see people throwing things out of a car. Along the Esplanade, where cars are parked overnight, people open a car door and deposit all the fast food containers—and sometimes other things—in the gutter. It is something of which we all should be aware. This legislation should go some way towards achieving that aim, by giving a reward and an incentive to people to recycle. I strongly support the legislation.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (16:03): I rise to support this bill. I note that the first act of the new Minister for Environment and Conservation is to put up an increased charge to the consumer; I cannot believe it. I am a former environment minister and I expanded the range of containers to which the deposit applies. It took a number of occasions to go through cabinet because it was very hard to describe what was in and what was out. I clearly remember a cabinet meeting when we got there early and set up a visual display of used containers on the window ledge, so that we could simply say, 'All those are in and all those are out. Can you actually understand why they would be out?'

I remember it had something to do with the size of the container. We increased it to a litre because anything over a litre is not really a take-home product and is not generally found in the litter stream. From memory, there was an issue with carbonated and non-carbonated products and there was also an issue with flavoured milk. We expanded the range of products. It has helped increase recycling rates and, therefore, I support the bill.

I raise some issues in relation to the bill. Scouts, for instance, at the 5¢ level turn over around $5 million a year. They will now turn over $10 million a year. I am sure they will enjoy that benefit and good luck to them—it is good for the community. There are issues the government needs to consider in relation to the bill. I know that it will not be today, but we have a new minister, new eyes, new mind, possibly a new decision.

I draw to the minister's attention the role of the beverage industry in the sense of the four super collectors. Essentially, they are owned by the beverage industry. Does that matter? I say it does matter. We all know every time we buy a can of coke there is now a 10¢ deposit on it—and that applies to 100 per cent of the products sold. But 100 per cent of the deposits on the products are not redeemed, so we recycle 85 per cent of the products. So 15 per cent of the deposits are collected by the manufacturer but not redeemed. That used to be 15 per cent of all the containers sold at 5¢. We have just doubled the amount of unredeemed deposits from 5¢ to 10¢.

In fairness to the beverage industry, it has to pay a handling fee for the recycling. The handling fee is paid to the super collector. The super collectors are owned by the beverage industry. The question comes to a matter of competitive fairness. What eyes are watching that the handling fee rate the super collectors charge to all recyclers is equal? I am not alleging for one second that the unredeemed deposits are 100 per cent kept by the beverage industry because a handling fee is paid out of it. I am suggesting that the beverage industry charges itself, in effect, the handing fee.

So, they save a lot of the unredeemed deposits by charging themselves a handling fee. If you are not in the beverage industry (you are simply a normal recycler) you still get charged the handling fee; but, of course, you do not have the unredeemed deposits. So, there is an issue about the equal treatment of how those unredeemed deposits are kept and how the handling fee is charged. I notice that a licensing regime is coming in as a result of this on the super collectors, which might provide the opportunity under the licensing conditions to seek certain information from the super collectors in relation to that sort of matter.

A matter always of great protection by the beverage industry was the level of unredeemed deposits. How much is 15 per cent? Let us say they are recycling 85 per cent of plastic bottles. If they are recycling 85 per cent, the unredeemed deposit then is 15 per cent—15 per cent is not collected. So, how much is 15 per cent at 10¢ of all the containers that are sold? It is a significant amount of money. It is millions. In fairness to the beverage industry, I am not saying that it is keeping that money unfairly. What I am saying is that the parliament, or the minister in particular, needs to convince itself that the system is working fairly.

I hope that the minister takes the fight for a container deposit scheme national. I note that Family First in the Senate, through Senator Steve Fielding, has moved for a national system of container deposit. I would hope that the Rudd government might support that, and I would hope that the federal opposition might support that. However, I sense that neither of them will. I have been on the end of the lobbying by the very powerful beverage industry. It has an association that goes around and lobbies governments to make sure that the container deposit legislation is not brought in—for what reason I could never quite understand because I think it is quite a good system.

Western Australia, of course, is developing a far broader system than just container deposits, and I personally support that. I think that the deposit scheme is easy on containers. It is a little more difficult when you move to other objects, but I can see a time when you might move to deposits on other objects. From memory, James McAdam, the Hon. Michael Armitage's ex-chief of staff, was involved with the Electronics Industry Association a few years ago when there was talk of national electronic waste recycling. That got tied up again. It was a cross-border issue. In simple terms, this is a good measure; it tidies up the bill. The government has made a decision to increase it to 10¢.

I note that the member for Morphett raises the issue of cigarettes. I have a slightly different perspective on cigarette litter than the member for Morphett. If I was a beachside council I would be telling my litter officers to sit down on the beach and simply fine away—as simple as that. The current fine is $315. I reckon that if you started issuing 100 of those on a Saturday or a Sunday at the beach you would tidy it up pretty quickly. However, the reality is, as I told the house this morning (and this might be of interest to the minister), across all its agencies, South Australia issues only 150 litter fines a year.

Victoria issues 28,000 fines of which 22,000 are paid. Victoria has a system similar to our system with respect to speeding fines: 'It wasn't me who littered. It was someone else.' So, 6,000 or 8,000 fines get wiped out in that sense. Of the litter fines in South Australia in the last year they were collected, 212 litter fines were issued but 75 of those related to hoons laying rubber on the road. The councils fine people for laying rubber on the road. I think that the council officer might not be sponsored by Bridgestone!

Take this out of the equation. I would not call that traditional litter. If you take that out of the equation, you are talking about only 150 fines for all local government, all the police force, all the national parks' officers and all the forestry officers. For all those people who have the power to issue fines, we get three a week. My view is that the government sector is simply not serious about litter. The member for Morphett talks about litter at the beach. Litter at the beach is very simple. Send your officers down to the beach and let them fine away. It is no different to speeding fines: at the end of the day, if you do not litter you do not get fined. It is pretty simple.

You would soon raise a lot of money and you would soon curtail cigarette litter. From memory, just for the member for Morphett's interest, something like five million cigarette butts are littered in South Australia every year. It staggers me that you drive down any street at about 10.30 and the smoking brigade is outside, just throwing their cigarette butts down on the ground—a lot of them. You could just sit there as a litter officer at every morning tea break and, bing, bing, bing, you could just fine them all. They would soon get the message. All they have to do is put it in the bin.

How can you have five million cigarette butts hitting the ground every year and only 150 litter fines getting done? I say: there is no focus on litter. The minister might be aware that I introduced a litter bill this morning in the house to try to deal with this issue outside of container deposit legislation, and I look forward to the minister's support of that bill when we come back in September. Other than that, I congratulate the government on the bill. I look forward to further improvements to CDL.

Mr BIGNELL (Mawson) (16:14): I rise very briefly to support this bill. Travel is one of those great ways to be reassured about things we are doing here that are done well, and also to look for new ideas. Last year I was in Queensland driving on roads near Dalby and Cunnamulla, those sorts of roads, and all the glass and plastic lining the roads was an absolute disgrace. The year before that I was in the Ukraine, and the Black Sea was full of empty bottles—you did not want to go in for a swim. Then, when I visited Kiev, I saw parks and gardens littered with bottles. I thought at the time how we must look back and thank those legislators in the 1970s for taking what was then fairly brave action. We know it was brave action because people in other states and at the federal level still have not taken this action. They have been too scared about some sort of public backlash and the fact that people might think that, if they introduce container deposit legislation, the world may end.

Indeed, I think that the legislators in the 1970s here in South Australia and this minister, brand new to the job today, need to be congratulated on bringing this legislation to the house. Far from being the end of the world, we might actually be postponing the end of the world by looking after our environment and making sure that, when people use a container, they take it back for recycling and do not just throw it on the side of the road where it gets into our streams, ends up on our beaches and, unfortunately, kills animals and does terrible things for our environment.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (16:16): I, too, rise briefly to support this bill. I think it shows absolute common sense and I, too, endorse what the legislators did 30 years ago. It was visionary and they took a bit of flak. They were getting on with the job in introducing container deposit legislation with the 5¢ scheme. As time goes on and if you look at it in real terms, I think the figure could possibly have been more than 10¢. It is pleasing to note that scout groups, sporting groups and even individuals for charitable organisations have raised quite a substantial amount of money through having containers that they can recycle. I endorse the comments of other members in this place today. When you travel around interstate, you notice the state of the roads and the disgrace that they are in as a result of discarded containers. We cannot get away from food packaging but containers are just thrown out of windows without any care in the world.

I am one of those people at fault. I get home from a week in this place and, basically, I have to empty out the water and soft drink containers just to clean up the car, but I know I am doing my bit for the state and the country. It is interesting in the country when you live in a place like Coomandook, as I do. We usually collect a tandem trailer load of cans and bottles—milk bottles, wine bottles and whatever is around—and put them in wool packs. I had an embarrassing moment one day when I had not tied them in properly, and obviously milk cartons do not weigh much. When you are driving along and you see a wool pack just float out the top of your trailer when you are on the Dukes Highway, it is a little embarrassing. Mind you, I retrieved it and got on with the job. I never did it again.

Mr Griffiths: I would have thought you'd have tied a knot.

Mr PEDERICK: No, I thought I could get away without putting a rope on it because I had it jammed in but it did not work. When you are in the country it is pleasing to see that people who live in the outlying areas bring in their trailers, utes and sometimes their trucks with a few years' supply on board of empties, and they come into the recycling depots. I note that industry works with the depots and will have to help fund this change. Looking back, years ago now, the beer industry promoted echoes. I cannot remember how long it is since that name disappeared.

Mr Bignell: Kero still uses it.

Mr PEDERICK: Kero still uses 'echoes', okay. Certainly, it is common-sense legislation and, along with the rest of the Liberal Party, I think that it is fantastic and that it should move forward as quickly as possible.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Minister for Environment and Conservation, Minister for Early Childhood Development, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Minister Assisting the Premier in Cabinet Business and Public Sector Management) (16:19): It is my great pleasure to make my first contribution as Minister for Environment and Conservation in promoting this bill, and I pay tribute to my predecessor in this role, the Hon. Gail Gago. I take this opportunity to thank members of the house for their contribution and support for this important piece of legislation.

As has already been noted, South Australia is the only state in Australia with container deposit legislation. Based on the Oregon USA model, it was introduced in 1975 by the Dunstan Labor government when, I think, the minister was the Hon. Glen Broomhill. The Beverage Container Act was later incorporated into the Environment Protection Act 1993. That allowed for an improved and more transparent approval process, regulation of super collectors, increased penalties for offences and the introduction of new offences in regard to interstate rorting.

In particular, the government has determined that beverage manufacturers and distributors will be provided until 2010 to amend their labels to show the 10¢ refund. It is anticipated that there will be a smooth transition to the new labelling requirements with manufacturers simply amending their labels during the next print run. I am pleased to report that several manufacturers have already commenced their label change process.

The legislation underpins South Australia's leadership in promoting sustainable and best use practices in the reuse and recycling of valuable resources. As a litter reduction measure, it is a tremendous success and has had substantial benefits when providing community groups with a source of income. I note the remarks made by the honourable member for Davenport, and I am advised that redeemed deposits are theoretically kept by the manufacturers to cut their costs. The bill requires greater reporting by super collectors which was previously unavailable. This information will inform the government to ensure greater equity to all parties in the beverage recycling industry.

Once again, I thank members of this house for their support of the bill. I foreshadow that in committee there will be an amendment in order to correct a small error which I understand is an agreed matter.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 18 passed.

New clause 18A.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I move:

Page 16, after line 18—

After clause 18 insert:

18A—Amendment of section 103N—Special management areas

Section 103N(1)(a)—delete 'proclamation' wherever occurring and substitute in each case:

notice

The government proposes this amendment to correct an error recently discovered in section 103N of the principal act (Environment Protection Act 1993). Section 103N enables the EPA to declare a widespread area of land to be a special management area. If the EPA believes that it may be affected by site contamination, such a declaration is made by notice in the Gazette. Part of the section incorrectly refers to a proclamation rather than a notice and should be corrected accordingly.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I confirm the opposition's support for the amendment.

New clause inserted.

Remaining clauses (19 to 22), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

Bill read a third time and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT