Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the following responses to Senate resolutions, as listed at item 13 on today's Order of Business:

(a) Response from the Premier of Western Australia (Mr Colin Barnett) to a resolution of the Senate of 13 March 2013 concerning the Northern Territory Container Deposit Scheme;

(b) Response from the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Bob Carr) to a resolution of the Senate of 14 March 2013 concerning torture in Fiji; and

(c) Response from the Premier of Western Australia (Mr Colin Barnett) to a resolution of the Senate of 21 March 2013 concerning the Grandcarers Support Scheme.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the response by the Premier of Western Australia, Mr Colin Barnett, to the resolution concerning the Northern Territory Container Deposit Scheme.

Leave granted.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

This is the second response that we have had to the Senate resolution passed on 13 March 2013, asking all state and territory governments to expedite giving the Northern Territory a permanent exclusion from the mutual recognition act in relation to the container deposit scheme, after the loss of the court case against Coca-Cola in the Northern Territory. I thank Mr Colin Barnett, the Premier of Western Australia, for his letter, following on from the letter from the South Australian Premier. It is concerning to me that, after nearly three months, we have not seen more responses from state governments. My understanding is—and, certainly, assurances have been coming forward to that effect—that it should not be an issue to get unanimous agreement from the states.

I would just like to highlight that, after I wrote to the Prime Minister asking why we were getting delays in the exemption, which essentially gives the government of the Northern Territory autonomy over its own recycling scheme for things such as plastic bottles, cans and containers, the Hon. Dr Andrew Leigh wrote back to me and said:

The Northern Territory's request is currently under out-of-session consideration by the Council of Australian Governments, along with a Regulation Impact Statement provided by the Northern Territory to inform decision-making. The Commonwealth will be able to finalise the regulation to give effect to the permanent exemption once all state and territory governments have considered the Northern Territory RIS and given their formal endorsement via the publication of a notice in their official gazettes.

This is the standard process, but today I would like to say to the other states that have not yet put this through: please do expedite this process. It is unacceptable that the Northern Territory government is saving to provide short-term funds—that is, short-term taxpayer funds—to actually pay for this scheme to keep it operating, to keep the businesses in business and to give them the certainty they need to see recycling rates increase in the Northern Territory and, obviously, give those social and economic returns to communities.

It still concerns me that we have not seen a second COAG decision on getting a national container deposit scheme up and running. This has been going for three years through the COAG process and for 16 to 20 years for various environmental and community groups that have been pushing for a national scheme. The letter to me from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister also says:

In addition, work continues on national options to better address packaging waste and litter. Addressing the problems of packaging waste and litter remains a priority for all jurisdictions and further information can be found on this website …

The key alternative that is being pushed at the COAG level and certainly in the media by the Food and Grocery Council and the beverage companies themselves is to provide a national bin network. Now, the National Bin Network is an alternative to container deposit schemes, but I would like to highlight something directly from the Australian Food and Grocery Council's own website. This document was put up in June 1997 and is entitled Understanding litter behaviour in Australia. It says:

My question is: what is the use of a national bin network, then, and why is this organisation promoting it? I have some comparisons between a national bin network and a container deposit scheme that I would like to go through, but first I would like to read from a little article from TheDaily Telegraphentitled 'Litterbugs do their dirty deeds on our most famous bit of sand, Bondi Beach':

BONDI Beach has 10 times as much rubbish as Parramatta Mall, a damning new survey had found.

Despite having 212 bins—including 37 public recycling bins—it was found to be more polluted than La Perouse and 10 times as dirty as Parramatta Mall, with an item of rubbish every step taken along the sand—even after up to four cubic meters is collected each day by a council beach rake.

Topping the list of Sydney's dirtiest places were Darling Harbour and Circular Quay, followed by the Cooks River foreshore—

which I personally helped clean about five or six weeks ago, not that it would have done much good, because the next day it would have been just as filthy and polluted as it was the day I was there—

the F3, and the New England Highway.

Recently, the Boomerang Alliance put out an information document comparing bin networks to a container deposit scheme. For public litter space—yes, bins have more capacity for other litter in public litter spaces, but they are not suitable in applications for a national bin network, and there has been no offer to put bins in these areas. Highways, beaches, parks and rivers—yes, container deposits work in those areas, but, once again, no national bin networks have been provided for those areas either. Sports ground litters—yes, bin networks have been provided; however, bins are also useful there for collecting for container deposit schemes. Shopping centres, airports et cetera—yes, a national bin network has provided bins in those areas. Do they produce clean recyclate? Yes, for container deposit schemes, that is one of the key factors in the economics of this system. There are serious contamination issues with the national bin network. Growing recycling industry—yes, a high volume of quality material for high-value product, and a low level under a national bin network, with a low volume of material as well. Reduced council litter and kerbside recycling costs—yes, proven under a container deposit scheme; no, under a national bin network. Financially sustainable under the new model that was put up to COAG—yes, but needs government and ongoing industry grants for a national bin network.

It is clear to me, and to others that have been focusing on this area, that the information is not in. The truth is not in on a national bin network. But we know that in South Australia, where you are from, Mr Acting Deputy President Bernardi, we have a very high recycling rate and a state that is very proud of its container deposit scheme. We would like to see the Northern Territory have a fair go in getting their own scheme up and running as well.

I want to highlight a couple of other quick things while I have some time. Another question that often gets asked is: will a container deposit scheme harm kerbside collections and hit ratepayers? The report for government found a net financial gain for councils and ratepayer savings taking into account the loss of recyclable material from kerbside, reduced collection and processing costs, and deposits on containers left in kerbside. There are seven points here that indicate the economic advantages to councils under a container deposit scheme.

The Australian Food and Grocery Council talk about a gross cost to the Australian taxpayer of $1.7 billion. While their study, which was put to COAG, has been thoroughly discredited, let us assume for a minute that it is correct and that a new national container deposit scheme would cost $1.7 billion. The scheme is set over 20 years and, if you break that down, it is $85 million a year. Per person per week in this country, that amounts to 7c or $3.70 per annum, or about half a cent per container. Even if the Food and Grocery Council's numbers were correct—and I do not believe they are; I think they have been thoroughly discredited—it is a small price to pay to provide a benefit to the community and a benefit to the environment by pushing recycling rates for our most obvious, visible and damaging form of litter, particularly plastic bottles, and to see recycling rates go up over 85 per cent.

The last thing I would like to highlight is an article on Sunday in the Sun-Herald about an email rort in a political campaign on the Food and Grocery Council's website. A number of businesses were contacted that had sent emails about a great big new tax, a tax on plastic. Business owner Tony Gavaghan was one of at least five people who had checked their email addresses and said that they were used to send the email without consent. He said:

I'm not all that pleased, particularly when I don't know a lot about the topic to start, I don't know any details of what they're opposing. Whether it was this or anything else I guess I don't like anyone using my name for anything.

Five other business owners also complained that there were emails being sent on their behalf by the Food and Grocery Council website. Of course, the FGC denied that there had been any misuse of that website.

This is an organic issue. It is a very important issue for the community and it is very important to the Northern Territory that we get them back their national— (Time expired)

Question agreed to.