Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australians are keen to help the environment. They are keen to reduce our carbon footprint as best they can and they are keen to make sure we become an environmentally friendly nation. The new government campaigned on being climate friendly and, as such, I believe they now need to set specific, achievable goals that not only are about reducing our carbon footprint but also cover other important environmental issues, such as recycling. But is important that the goals we set are attainable and reasonable and are not cost-prohibitive. It is widely accepted that any measure to improve our treatment of the environment will cost money, but the proper legislation, procedure and planning will ensure that the environmental benefits far outweigh the costs. I call on the federal government to commit to a ban of all plastic and glass bottles included in landfill by 2012. To support this ban, I am calling on the government to introduce a nationwide container deposit scheme so that an incentive is provided to all Australians to reduce the amount of landfill from plastic and glass bottles.

For just over 30 years now, South Australia, the only state with a container deposit scheme, has provided people with a 5c refund for each recycled drink container. The recycling rate in South Australia is now 85 per cent, compared to just 35 per cent in other states. In February, the South Australian state government announced it will increase the 5c deposit to 10c later this year, a move which will no doubt increase the already high recycling rate. This successful scheme should be embraced by other states. However, we can go one step further in providing even further incentive by introducing across the nation reverse vending machines, which are very popular in Scandinavian countries such as Finland.

Reverse vending machines are small, automated machines which have been installed in supermarkets, local shops, service stations and kiosks across Finland. The machines take up very little shop space and their installation is in cooperation with retailers. Consumers take their empty glass and plastic bottles to their local supermarket or 7-Eleven equivalent and deposit their empty bottles. After they have deposited their bottles one by one into the automated chute, the machine prints out a bar-coded docket which tells the consumer how much money they will be reimbursed. The consumer then takes it to the checkout and is reimbursed the money. Larger plastic bottles attract a larger refund than smaller ones.

Finland has a return rate of some 98 per cent—the highest in Europe. On average, a glass bottle is refilled 33 times and a plastic bottle is refilled 18 times. The empty plastic bottle caps are also recycled. It is estimated that this highly successful scheme prevents around 380,000 tonnes of waste annually. The scheme has also had an impact on the trucking industry: trucks deliver the full bottles and return the empty bottles to the manufacturer or soft drink plant, thereby reducing the number of empty trucks on the road and increasing transport productivity.

The Finnish system, which began in the 1970s, around the same time as South Australia’s deposit scheme, shows that monetary reimbursement and easy access to return points can increase the incentive to recycle. Indeed, recycling rates in Australia have increased and, in some aspects, this can be attributed to increased access to kerbside recycling. The Australian government’s 2006 Productivity Commission report on waste management suggested that recycling participation in many households may simply be a response to having a convenient and easy-to-use recycling service provided for them.

As part of a national container deposit scheme, federal and state governments should work in cooperation with supermarkets and service stations to install reverse vending machines. Woolworths, Coles, 7-Elevens, NightOwls, IGAs and service stations would be provided with a financial incentive from the federal government to install the machines. Further incentive would be provided by consumers continually returning to the store and spending their reimbursement on products within the shop. In fact, some reverse vending machines allow for a retailer’s logo and message to be printed on the docket, providing retailers with an opportunity to promote current deals or savings. Consumers, despite paying an increase of 10c, 15c or 20c on their drink initially, will be able to have this money returned to them through easy, local access to the machines.

In rural and remote parts of Australia, where market competition is limited, it is highly unlikely these machines could be installed in locally owned service stations or small grocery stores. I therefore call on the federal government, when implementing a national container deposit scheme, to work with local governments to provide a return point for regional and remote Australians. Many smaller, remote area councils do not provide kerbside recycling services and instead provide drop-off points for rubbish. These collection points can easily serve as a return point for empty glass and plastic bottles. For example, a local government employee at the drop-off point could calculate the number of bottles returned by a person and then write out a docket which could then be taken to local council offices for reimbursement. Federal government financial assistance would allow the local councils to then transport the bottles to a recycling centre or bulk collection point.

It is currently cheaper to dump glass into landfill than to recycle it. With only around a third of bottles being recycled, it is high time the federal government moved to implement a scheme similar to that in South Australia. I understand that the current parliamentary inquiry into waste management will hand down its report in August, and I look forward to seeing what measures it proposes to increase bottle recycling. In the meantime, I call on the government to look further into the implementation of reverse vending machines across Australia.

A national container deposit scheme, using reverse vending machines where possible, is a win-win situation. Australians are willing to put in a little bit more effort to help the environment if the financial incentive is present and the inconvenience is minimal. Recycling rate targets would be easier to meet and the federal government would be meeting some of their commitments to reduce energy use, waste and environmental harm. Perhaps most importantly, however, is the community benefit derived from such a scheme.

Putting a monetary value on the return of bottles will help to reduce litter. According to Clean Up Australia, glass pieces were the second most common item of rubbish collected on Clean Up Australia Day in March last year. Glass alcohol bottles were in fourth place, and plastic bottle caps and lids came in fifth. Polyethylene terephthalate—PET—plastic beverage containers came in ninth. Last year, six of the 10 most common items collected on Clean Up Australia Day were recyclable.

The Finnish example shows us that if people had an incentive to keep their bottles, instead of throwing them away once finished, the number of glass and plastic bottles littering our environment would reduce. The 2006 Productivity Commission report into waste management found that the people most likely to litter are aged below 25 years, unemployed and/or are part of large groups—the same people who would benefit most from personally collecting bottles and returning them for some much needed cash. Indeed, in Finland and Denmark, young Scandinavians can often be seen in the early mornings—after a party, for instance—lugging bags and cartons of empty bottles back to the supermarket to receive some welcome cash.

A container deposit scheme would provide a vital fundraising opportunity for community groups. In fact, last year in South Australia the scouting organisation made more than $7 million from bottle recycling. Schools, P&Cs, sporting clubs and community organisations would be able to introduce collection programs and use the money raised to fund a range of programs and improvements to their own organisations.

This Labor government campaigned on its climate-friendliness and its commitment to reducing our carbon footprint and environmental harm. I therefore call on this government to work in cooperation with businesses and local governments to introduce a national container deposit scheme. I further call on this government to make moves to ban the inclusion of glass and plastic bottles in landfill by 2012. If this government is serious about being more climate friendly, then it should, as soon as possible, take steps to join its South Australian counterparts in helping Australians help the environment by implementing a national scheme.

Jennie George (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I commend the member for Maranoa for placing this important issue on the parliamentary business paper. I think we all share his concern about the issue of waste management. It is a very important issue for our community generally. I want to assure the member for Maranoa that the Rudd Labor government is keen to explore ways to strengthen Australia’s recycling performance and to reduce the amount of litter in our environment.

It is the case that households and businesses continue to generate more than 30 million tonnes of solid waste each year and, despite considerable efforts and advances, around half of all that still ends up in landfill. It is estimated that Australia is producing almost 750 kilograms of waste per person annually, and of course this leads to a situation where landfills are choking and creating a costly headache for authorities, particularly local government authorities, struggling to store the rubbish and to keep opening never-ending landfill sites.

In the words of the Adelaide based CRC for Contamination Assessment and Remediation of the Environment—and I think this probably generally sums up our views on the issue:

Disposing of waste safely, permanently and economically is a challenge and a cost for every major production industry.

… whatever can be done to turn these wastes into safe, economically valuable products and to prevent them from posing an environmental or health risk in the future is highly desirable.

Of course, the key long-term aim in this debate, when we are dealing with waste management, is to have industries design products which minimise elements that cannot be reused, repaired or recycled and to educate communities to eschew overconsumption and excess packaging.

However, in recent times it has become a debate about not just reducing litter and reducing the flow of material to landfill but also, in essence, improving management of the waste stream, which is increasingly becoming part of the complex suite of solutions needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I note in more recent times that the waste industry has increased its efforts to tackle the release of methane inside landfills. Increasingly, the industry is looking to burn off the gas and, where possible, generate electricity from that process.

It is good also to see that household kerbside collection and drop-off centres for recycling have become part of daily life in many of our cities and regional areas. It is not just a matter of saving landfill space, as important as that is, but increasingly one of looking at energy use as well. As we know, there are new challenges to be met, one of the most important being the toxic e-waste stream. I read a recent report that suggested that two million old TV sets will end up in landfill this year—let alone the problem we all face with superseded computers and mobile phones. In that regard, it is interesting to note Australia’s current love affair with bottled water is leaving environmentalists very worried about the increasing toll on the planet. Not only do these bottled water suppliers suck up valuable fuels to make them but they are also adding, as we know, to the mountains of rubbish, particularly in public places. Unfortunately, while many Australians are enthusiastic recyclers at home, we do not actually provide many facilities to collect waste in public places.

The motion that comes before us from the member for Maranoa specifically raises the strategy of container deposit legislation. It is true to say that container deposit legislation is considered by many to be a potential way to increase recycling, particularly of beverage containers. As the member pointed out, consumers would pay a deposit on certain beverage containers and that deposit would be partially refunded when the empty containers were returned to a collection point, thus giving individuals an economic incentive to return used beverage containers for disposal. However, perhaps the member may not be aware that the federal environment minister, Mr Garrett, has recently discussed options for improving recycling, including CDL—container deposit legislation—with his counterpart state and territory environment ministers as recently as April this year.

That body, the EPHC—the Environment Protection and Heritage Council—agreed to investigate the merits of potential national options for improving the level of recycling of packaging wastes, such as beverage containers, and decreasing the amount of packaging litter. They believe this work will assess the environmental, economic and social costs and benefits of various options, including the option raised in the motion by the member for Maranoa. This review will obviously take into account the experiences of South Australia, which is, I think, currently the only state in Australia with CDL legislation. But the review will also look at the investigations of CDL by other states, because there are differing opinions, and it will consider the mid-term review of the National Packaging Covenant. So it will be a broader examination than just the specific focus that the member for Maranoa draws our attention to in his motion.

The National Packaging Covenant is an important issue in this debate. That covenant was a voluntary agreement established in 1999. The mid-term review, which will shortly be upon us, will assess this scheme under which the packaging industry aims to increase recycling rates of all packaging to 65 per cent by 2010. The mid-term review of that covenant will also assess its effectiveness and allow us to see whether more needs to be done to manage packaging waste in Australia.

I would say to the member for Maranoa that the issue of container deposit legislation, in our view, should be seen in much broader terms, and it is an issue that is under active investigation by the Rudd Labor government in cooperation with the states and territories. We believe it is important to understand the full costs and benefits to the community of all waste management options, including CDL. That is why the body of federal, state and territory ministers is in fact undertaking this investigation. As I understand it, the new working group will make its final report in November this year. Environment ministers have also decided to develop a national plan of action on litter reduction, given broader concerns about the impacts of litter in Australia.

Given that different studies over time have presented different views of how CDL would work in jurisdictions around Australia, it would be, in our view, pre-emptive to commit to a national program for container deposits as proposed in this motion before the necessary cost-benefit analysis is undertaken. However, I do sincerely commend the member for Maranoa for bringing this important matter to our attention and I think he can rest assured that the Rudd Labor government is taking this issue seriously. It is progressing an examination of a cost-benefit analysis and will certainly take into account the experience in South Australia and obviously the experiences that the member for Maranoa has pointed to in some overseas countries. We will make final decisions based on a very thorough examination of the issues raised in this motion.

David Hawker (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am delighted to support my good friend and colleague the honourable member for Maranoa in this motion. I think this motion is timely, I think it is very important and I think it is one that recognises a real issue that has to be dealt with. While I welcome the comments of the member for Throsby with what I would call in-principle support, I feel that we could probably go further and we could start to push this particular issue without having to wait for some of the other points which she raised, which I am sure are very valid. This issue is a clear-cut one that can be dealt with fairly quickly.

Getting back to the motion: it talks about the importance of committing, by 2012, to ban the use of plastic and glass bottles in landfill; about providing a cash refund for glass and plastic bottles; about reimbursement to grocery and convenience stores that provide collection sites for empty bottles, which is the Finnish example, as the member for Maranoa pointed out; and about how the federal government can cooperate with local government bodies to ensure that people in the country can participate. I know from personal experience that it is easy to have a centralised depot when you have a high volume of these things, but often regional areas, particularly some of the less populated areas, present certain challenges in this regard.

Clearly, the recycling situation in South Australia has worked. It is timely that South Australia has moved—as the member for Barker, who is sitting in the chair at the moment, knows only too well—from a 5c deposit to a 10c deposit. In my family’s experience in days gone by, when our boys were younger and we were holidaying in the electorate of Barker, one of the great ways to get the children out and earning some pocket money was for them to collect bottles and take them down to the recycling depot. It worked but, more importantly, it engendered an experience to think about as they go through life: the importance of recycling. South Australia has been nation-leading and I think it is something that should continue. My colleague here the member for Grey tells me that a friend of his bought a bottle of Perrier water in St Petersburg and on the label was ‘5c deposit if in South Australia’. South Australia has had a lot of influence. I think we can start to move much faster nationally than by waiting for some sort of a review.

Not so long ago I had the pleasure of opening VicWest Recyclers, a new facility in Stawell. The work that this group are doing in recycling is quite remarkable. To see this in action, to see the way that the local community have supported it and the awareness it has led to in terms of the importance of recycling, is quite remarkable. Since VicWest Recyclers set up in Stawell, over 80 per cent of the community are involved in recycling. It shows that you can engender an attitude change. That is why this motion is so important.

The member for Maranoa talked about the situation in Finland; they have a bottle return rate of 98 per cent. We really have a long way to go. I think that is why this motion is so important. It is timely and it needs to be acted upon, and I would certainly commend it to all honourable members. I would hope that the honourable member for Throsby would, following discussion of the motion brought up by the member for Maranoa, impress upon her colleagues on the front bench the need to move a bit faster. We really should move more quickly. I have great pleasure in supporting the motion.

Darren Cheeseman (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This may be the first time I have actually spoken in front of you, Mr Deputy Speaker Secker, so I will congratulate you on your appointment. I have some real practical examples relating to the waste management issue. In another working life I was previously the chairperson of the Central Highlands waste management group, which was a consortium of local governments partially within the federal seat of Corangamite. I certainly worked in a very diligent fashion on that body to educate the community about the importance of recycling. We saw a remarkable take-up in recycling through that period of the late nineties and the turn of this century.

I was listening most intently to the contribution made by my neighbour the member for Wannon. I certainly do accept the concept that many regional and rural communities have many more challenges to meet in recycling, simply because of tyranny of distance and fewer volumes. I would like to congratulate the mover of this motion, the member for Maranoa. In broad terms, I certainly share his sentiment and concern for the environment. In fact, I would like a dollar for every plastic bag or plastic container that went unnecessarily to landfill. I suspect that I would probably be as wealthy as Bill Gates if I had that revenue.

I think we all support recycling and I certainly acknowledge the member for Maranoa and his motion. In broad terms there is a lot of work to be done. The councils within the federal seat of Corangamite, and more broadly across Victoria, are working in a very diligent fashion to improve the systems that are used to recycle. Certainly I have had the pleasure of going to many modern recycling plants and very much value the contribution that they do make.

Container deposit laws, CDLs, are viewed by some as a potential mechanism to increase recycling. Personally, I believe that they do have a role to play. I am most grateful that our minister, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, has already initiated some discussions with his state colleagues to investigate the possibilities that CD laws do provide in meeting what I think is a very substantial challenge for all of us in becoming much more sustainable communities.

A whole lot of work is required. For more than a decade people have been raising with me the approach that the South Australian government has taken. I had a very similar experience, when I was much younger, to that of the federal member for Wannon, where I collected containers and cashed them in and was able to buy packets of lollies and those sorts of things, and it was a very important source of revenue for me.

I still have all of my teeth, so obviously I was not particularly successful at collecting containers to the extent that some of my friends and colleagues might have been. But I think we have some very significant challenges that we need to respond to. I think federal Labor is responding to those challenges. I have heard the suggestion from the other side—and of course I will endeavour to work within the circles of government to ensure that we do get the right mix of policy so that we can, as I say, become much more sustainable as communities. This is just one of those options. So, without further ado, I, too, congratulate the member for Maranoa and look forward to further dialogue perhaps in this place or the other place on how we might improve.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.