HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-03-20 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

CONTAINER DEPOSIT SCHEME

The Hon. M. PARNELL (17:19): I move:

That this council—

1. Notes—

(a) that South Australians have enjoyed the benefits of beverage container deposit legislation (CDL) since 1977;

(b) that the CDL regime is overwhelmingly supported by the community and has resulted in litter reduction and recycling rates that are the envy of other states and territories;

(c) that the South Australian CDL regime is exempt from the Commonwealth Mutual Recognition Act 1992;

(d) that extending a system of CDL to other jurisdictions would be good for the environment and provide exciting opportunities for South Australian business to expand their operations to other parts of Australia;

(e) that in the recent decision of the Federal Court of Australia in the case of Coca-Cola Amatil (Aust) Pty Ltd v Northern Territory of Australia [2013] the Northern Territory container deposit scheme was ruled invalid; and

(f) that some beverage companies have announced that they will cease to provide container deposit refunds under the scheme.

2. Calls on all Australian governments to work together to expedite consideration of any application made by the Northern Territory government for an exemption under the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 to support the continuation of the Northern Territory container deposit scheme.

This motion goes to something that is beyond our borders but is intimately linked with something that South Australians hold very dear; that is, our longstanding container deposit legislation system. The motion is somewhat lengthy and I think it is self-explanatory. It basically points out that South Australians have enjoyed the benefits of beverage container deposit legislation for a considerable period of time and that this scheme has a great deal of support, both within the community and also within the parliament.

The motion also points out that one of the reasons we are able to maintain our unique South Australian scheme is that we have an exemption from the operation of the commonwealth Mutual Recognition Act. We have that exemption because our scheme has been in existence for so long. As it was a pre-existing scheme, South Australia insisted that it be allowed to continue, notwithstanding that it does not apply elsewhere.

Another point made in the motion is that it would be good for the environment and it would be good for business if the South Australian scheme could be extended interstate. The reason that it would be good for business is that it would be South Australian businesses that would be most likely in the best position to set up and operate in other jurisdictions, and that is exactly what has happened in the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory government passed a CDL scheme and South Australian businesses were the first cabs off the rank in terms of taking advantage of those opportunities.

However, the Northern Territory scheme was thrown into disarray by a court case earlier this month brought by Coca-Cola—one of the biggest beverage companies in the world and certainly in Australia. The result of that court case was that the Northern Territory scheme was declared invalid.

There is a way forward for the Northern Territory scheme and that is for the Council of Australian Governments to unanimously agree that they too should be exempt from the Mutual Recognition Act in the same way that South Australia is exempt—that is at the heart of this motion. It is basically calling on the South Australian government to lend its support to what will no doubt be support from other jurisdictions for the Northern Territory scheme to be able to operate as the people of the Northern Territory have decreed in their various elections at local and territory levels.

The motion that I have put forward is based on a motion that was put to the Australian Senate by Tasmanian Senator Peter Whish-Wilson, which was successful in the Senate. It is my understanding that other jurisdictions will similarly be debating motions for all of the state and territory governments to get behind the Northern Territory's initiative and to make sure that their scheme is given every opportunity to proceed.

We do not have unlimited time because the Northern Territory government, having received the body blow of the Coca-Cola decision, has decided to step in and keep the scheme going for eight weeks only, so that is the window of opportunity that we have for the rest of the country to get behind territorians. As the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment in the Northern Territory, Peter Chandler, said in his media release two days ago: 'We need time to gain the Council of Australian Governments exemption from the Mutual Recognition Act but we are confident of their support.'

I think that confidence is well founded and I think that, if it is to succeed, then the jurisdiction that has the most to gain by supporting them is South Australia. As the motion says, we are the ones who have been doing this for nearly 30 years, it has multiparty support, it has broad community support and, in fact, South Australians are proud that our recycling rates are better and our littering rates are lower than other jurisdictions. I think it is going to help get the ball rolling if this parliament can get behind the Northern Territory and support their application for an exemption at COAG and we can see South Australian businesses taking advantage of that opportunity, getting up to the Northern Territory and starting to help them with a worthwhile recycling scheme. I commend the motion to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. K.J. Maher.

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