HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-07-03 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 17 June 2008. Page 3297.)

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Environment and Conservation, Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse, Minister Assisting the Minister for Health) (12:31): By way of concluding remarks, I thank honourable members for their contributions to the second reading stage of this bill. I thank members for their support. In reply, I will seek to address some of the questions posed by honourable members and clarify some points that have been made.

This bill is, indeed, not about the increase in the refund level, although the bill does contain provisions that address some of the potential consequences of the increase in the deposit/refund value, such as reducing the potential of the illegal transport of empty containers from interstate. Whilst CDL in South Australia has an outcome of recycling, resource recovery and diversion from landfill, litter control remains a key focus. As such, the scheme is targeted more at containers that appear in litter streams. Wine is generally consumed at home or at restaurants and has a high recovery rate via kerbside collection systems, making CDL unwarranted.

The legislation does treat some containers or beverages differently. This difference is probably most notable since the extension of the legislation to fruit juice and flavoured milk in containers of less than one litre and non-carbonated soft drinks, such as energy drinks, sport drinks and fruit drinks, in containers of up to three litres, which came into effect in 2003. Generally speaking, containers of more than one litre for fruit juice and flavoured milk are not prominent in litter, whereas containers of less than one litre, particularly flavoured milk, are very prominent indeed.

There are some exemptions with the current legislation, of which cardboard casks (wine and water) are included. Fruit juice is covered in containers of less than one litre, as explained earlier, whereas fruit drinks are considered to be soft drinks, which sees coverage for containers of up to and including three litres. I would suggest that there is a strong possibility that the recycling rates for any commodity that one might name would be greatly enhanced if it was subject to a mandated deposit or refund system, but it is outside of our exemption under the mutual recognition treaty to include containers other than sealed beverage containers within the scope of the beverage containers provisions of the Environment Protection Act. Such a move could only currently occur via a national scheme. Of course, we introduced CDL into South Australia before mutual recognition legislation, so that is why, in some ways, it provides a cap or ceiling on certain containers which we could now include post mutual recognition.

As members know, CDL was primarily introduced in this state in 1977 as a litter control mechanism. This was to take account of the growing amount of drink containers found on the side of the road, in parks and waterways. Items such as peanut butter are generally consumed at home, and the existing kerbside recycling collection system adequately covers the collection of containers for items like this.

Pleasingly, there is currently a groundswell towards a national container deposit scheme. I can report that at the 16th meeting of the Environment Protection and Heritage Council (EPHC) on 17 April 2008, the council resolved to conduct an assessment of potential options for national measures. This includes container deposit legislation to address resource efficiency, environmental impacts, and the reduction of litter from packaging waste such as beverage containers. A preliminary report will be made to council at its next meeting in 2008, and a full report will come to council in 2009.

In the context of a national proposal for CDL, South Australia's experience is invaluable and has a lot to offer in terms of its success. While the government would fully support any proposal for a national scheme, it would not do so to the detriment of our existing model. I reiterate: this bill is not about the impending increase in deposit value to 10¢ (which will be implemented by an amendment to the regulations). However, I assure the house that the EPA has undertaken considerable consultation with the recycling industry on this matter, seeking to find the most efficient and effective transition for the refund level change with a view to minimising inconvenience and cost to industry stakeholders.

The bill contains provisions addressing potential rorting of the system through the illegal trafficking of empty containers from interstate. The bill provides a deterrent, including greater penalties, to help reduce activity occurring and placing a significant strain on the CDL system. The increase in refund value for beverage containers could increase the risk of containers coming in from interstate and, as such, any delay in the bill could exacerbate this concern.

I again remind members that this bill is not about the increase in the refund level. The appropriateness of the existing 5¢ refund level was considered at length, as was the suggestion that it should be increased to 10¢ or 20¢. The government investigated the potential for an increase to 20¢, but determined that there would be a greater impact on business from such a move. This decision took into account many factors, including the ability of the industry to cope with the transition—remembering that almost all of the industry operates within a national market. This was not the case when the legislation was first introduced. A 100 per cent increase from 5¢ to 10¢ was supported by the community, and was determined to provide enough incentive for consumers to increase the return of containers.

This bill provides for the regulation of super collectors, the entities who pay the collection depots to collect beverage containers from the general public. Super collectors were not previously recognised within legislation but will now be managed by conditions of approval which will, in effect, provide industry standards. The EPA currently collects data on the operations of the beverage container system, although current legislation does not cater for formal collection of data from super collectors. The data collected to date has been on a goodwill basis, and a condition of approval for super collectors will be the requirement to report on the numbers of containers managed—potentially on a monthly basis.

This bill proposes the regulation of super collectors for a range of reasons, the least of which is equitable regulation of stakeholders within this industry. The EPA is presently working through a range of conditions that may be able to be applied to super collectors, which may or may not have legal capacity to reveal the value of redeemed deposits. Certainly, super collectors will be required to provide return rates for beverage containers on a regular basis, although I understand they have been doing this on a voluntary basis for several years now.

The government is well aware of the benefit of container deposit legislation and its positive effect on greenhouse gas production; however, it is considered unnecessary to include specific reference to this issue in the bill. I thank members for their support and look forward to the committee stage of the bill.

Bill read a second time.


[Sitting suspended from 12:40 to 14:15]


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