❓ Hon P.G. Pendal inquired about the consideration of compulsory beverage container deposit legislation. The Minister responded that the Keep Australia Beautiful Council rejected the concept due to its perceived ineffectiveness as a litter abatement tool and potential negative impact on local government recycling services.
AnsweredQoN 716Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
(2) If so, what has been the outcome of that consideration? (3) If no to (1), will the Minister consider such legislation given the litter reduction benefits of such a provision? (4) If not, why not? Answered on 14 November 2000 The Minister
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
14 November 2000
Response time
62 days
(1)-(4) Yes, the Keep Australia Beautiful Council on behalf of the Government, has reviewed this concept to determine the effectiveness of compulsory beverage container deposit legislation. The Keep Australia Beautiful Council rejected the concept, as it is not considered an effective litter abatement tool, nor would it address one of the major contributors to the litter stream, which is fast food packaging. It has also been suggested that the introduction of a container deposit scheme could negatively affect the viability of local government kerb side recycling services.
(3) If no to (1), will the Minister consider such legislation given the litter reduction benefits of such a provision? (4) If not, why not? Answered on 14 November 2000 The Minister Replied: (1)-(4) Yes, the Keep Australia Beautiful Council on behalf of the Government, has reviewed this concept to determine the effectiveness of compulsory beverage container deposit legislation. The Keep Australia Beautiful Council rejected the concept, as it is not considered an effective litter abatement tool, nor would it address one of the major contributors to the litter stream, which is fast food packaging. It has also been suggested that the introduction of a container deposit scheme could negatively affect the viability of local government kerb side recycling services.
(4) If not, why not? Answered on 14 November 2000 The Minister Replied: (1)-(4) Yes, the Keep Australia Beautiful Council on behalf of the Government, has reviewed this concept to determine the effectiveness of compulsory beverage container deposit legislation. The Keep Australia Beautiful Council rejected the concept, as it is not considered an effective litter abatement tool, nor would it address one of the major contributors to the litter stream, which is fast food packaging. It has also been suggested that the introduction of a container deposit scheme could negatively affect the viability of local government kerb side recycling services.
Answered on 14 November 2000 The Minister Replied: (1)-(4) Yes, the Keep Australia Beautiful Council on behalf of the Government, has reviewed this concept to determine the effectiveness of compulsory beverage container deposit legislation. The Keep Australia Beautiful Council rejected the concept, as it is not considered an effective litter abatement tool, nor would it address one of the major contributors to the litter stream, which is fast food packaging. It has also been suggested that the introduction of a container deposit scheme could negatively affect the viability of local government kerb side recycling services.
(3) If no to (1), will the Minister consider such legislation given the litter reduction benefits of such a provision? (4) If not, why not? Answered on 14 November 2000 The Minister Replied: (1)-(4) Yes, the Keep Australia Beautiful Council on behalf of the Government, has reviewed this concept to determine the effectiveness of compulsory beverage container deposit legislation. The Keep Australia Beautiful Council rejected the concept, as it is not considered an effective litter abatement tool, nor would it address one of the major contributors to the litter stream, which is fast food packaging. It has also been suggested that the introduction of a container deposit scheme could negatively affect the viability of local government kerb side recycling services.
(4) If not, why not? Answered on 14 November 2000 The Minister Replied: (1)-(4) Yes, the Keep Australia Beautiful Council on behalf of the Government, has reviewed this concept to determine the effectiveness of compulsory beverage container deposit legislation. The Keep Australia Beautiful Council rejected the concept, as it is not considered an effective litter abatement tool, nor would it address one of the major contributors to the litter stream, which is fast food packaging. It has also been suggested that the introduction of a container deposit scheme could negatively affect the viability of local government kerb side recycling services.
Answered on 14 November 2000 The Minister Replied: (1)-(4) Yes, the Keep Australia Beautiful Council on behalf of the Government, has reviewed this concept to determine the effectiveness of compulsory beverage container deposit legislation. The Keep Australia Beautiful Council rejected the concept, as it is not considered an effective litter abatement tool, nor would it address one of the major contributors to the litter stream, which is fast food packaging. It has also been suggested that the introduction of a container deposit scheme could negatively affect the viability of local government kerb side recycling services.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.