A deposit and refund system for used beverage containers is a simple concept and one that makes sense from almost every point of view. Therefore, it is an absolute disgrace that a 30-year battle has been waged to have one reinstated in New South Wales. The simple step of putting a 10¢ deposit on a beverage container which is refunded when the container is returned is one which worked well in the past in New South Wales and which should work in the future. A container deposit scheme would create about 1,000 jobs across the State. I am sure that many members of this House have fond memories of collecting drink bottles from parks and beaches as children and cashing them in to supplement their pocket money. Others will remember that community groups such as the Scouts and Girl Guides used the scheme to help raise much-needed funds. However, not only children and community groups but also the entire community and of course the environment will benefit from the reintroduction of container deposit legislation in New South Wales.

South Australia has had a container deposit scheme for well over 30 years and now has the highest rates of recycling of bottles and cans in Australia and the lowest rates of littering. Containers covered by the legislation comprise just 4 per cent of litter in South Australia compared to more than 30 per cent in the rest of Australia. In June 2011, PricewaterhouseCoopers International released a report on reuse and recycling of beverage packaging. It found that the benefits of recycling beverage containers resulting from the implementation of a mandatory deposit scheme produced outstanding results with collection rates of between 80 per cent and 95 per cent. That should be compared with kerbside collection recovery rates of about 40 per cent.

Despite the clear benefits, the multinational beverage industry has waged a 30-year campaign against any government that has dared even to consider the idea of placing a nominal deposit on beverage containers. Coca-Cola Amatil has been using the Keep Australia Beautiful Council as a means to gain access to members of Parliament to put forward its views in several States. In the Northern Territory Coca-Cola and its allies ran a well-funded misinformation campaign against the cash-for-container scheme. The beverage industry and other container deposit opponents frequently argue that container deposit schemes undermine the viability of kerbside recycling services. Kerbside recycling became unviable as soon as the beverage and packaging industry subsidies on the payback price for recyclable materials were withdrawn. As a result, ratepayers have been left with the burden of recycling their products.

In 2005 the Boomerang Alliance said that industry contributed just 1 per cent of the total cost of kerbside and public place recycling. Yet it is proposing to have new street recycling bins, which are notorious for cross-contamination. That would simply be another financial burden on the community whereby councils would be required to pay for collection without any greater chance of success than the current system. It is the community that pays for the cost of landfill disposal and kerbside recycling systems through damage to the environment and higher council rates. Kerbside recycling costs on average $41 a year per household. Every container that is recovered through combined container deposit refund and kerbside recovery costs about 2¢ to 3¢. However, for every container that is sent to landfill it costs us all about 8¢ to 9¢, including environmental costs. Where is the economic sense in that?

The Boomerang Alliance has found that a national refund scheme of 10c per container would lead to an additional 4 billion—yes, that is right, billion—containers or an additional 440,000 tonnes of material recycled each year. The weight of the steel arch of the Sydney Harbour Bridge is some 35,500 tonnes. That means a huge number of containers are not being recycled. Can we afford to keep doing this? Container deposit schemes already exist in 11 States of the United States, in all provinces but one in Canada, in Sweden, Germany, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium and Denmark and, of course, in South Australia and the Northern Territory. The average rate of recycling is 80 per cent and it is as high as 95 per cent in some countries—the higher the deposit, the higher the return rate. Internationally, deposit-refund systems are the most effective mechanism for achieving high container recovery rates.

In 1995 the incoming Carr Government promised to introduce a container deposit scheme but then bowed to extreme pressure by a powerful industry lobby led by groups such as Woolworths, Schweppes Cottees and Coca-Cola Amatil, all under the umbrella of the Beverage Industry Environment Council. If that name is not the epitome of greenwash I do not know what is. The groundbreaking report produced by the Institute for Sustainable Futures and commissioned by the Carr Government in 2000 was kept hidden by that Government and released only in response to The Greens call for papers in February 2002. It was kept hidden because it told the Government what the industry did not want it to hear; that is, that a 10¢ refundable deposit on bottles and other containers in New South Wales would create 1,500 jobs while easing Sydney’s landfill problems. Local government emphatically supports a container deposit scheme. The time has come for the New South Wales Government to stand up to the beverage industry lobby and to reinstitute a tried and true method for saving money, reducing waste, reducing resource and energy use, creating more jobs and reducing environmental harm.

Cate on ABC 702 Mornings talking about the marine science audit

Greens MP and environment spokesperson Cate Faehrmann says the government is delaying its response to its long awaited marine science audit, released today, because it tells us what it doesn’t want to hear: that marine parks work and we need more.

The Independent Scientific Audit of Marine Parks was established by the NSW Government in June last year and the report can be downloaded here. One recommendation (Page ix) suggests new protections are necessary in two key gap areas – the Hawkesbury and Twofold Shelf marine bioregions.

“Now that its long-awaited report is telling them the ‘inconvenient truth’ that the science behind marine parks is justified we see more stalling tactics from the government. This is nothing short of disgraceful,” said Ms Faehrmann.

“Ever since the election the government has been attacking the science behind marine parks.

“Now that its independent scientific audit has finally been released, it’s hardly surprising that it has found that marine parks are valuable and they work and we need more of them. What is surprising is the government’s refusal to acknowledge that the report states this without question.

“To now put this report out to another public consultation until June is a disgraceful move by the government and designed to delay the inevitable – the lifting of the moratorium on marine parks.

“The government must immediately overturn the moratorium and instead focus on how they can guarantee a sustainable future for NSW marine areas.

“This is not an issue we can afford to delay on anymore. If we want a viable recreational and commercial fishing industry into the future we need to protect key areas to maintain healthy fish stocks,” said Ms Faehrmann.

Media contact: Peter Stahel 0433 005 727

The Greens’ bill that would have weeded out dodgy ecological consultants was voted down in the Upper House today. The bill would have amended the Threatened Species Conservation Act to establish an accreditation scheme for ecological consultants. Ecological consultants conduct the extremely important environmental assessments necessary for major developments and mines and are currently unregulated.

“The bill’s failure means that developers and miners in NSW will still be able to pick and choose consultants who provide favourable advice,” said Ms Faehrmann.

“It was obvious from the debate that the government didn’t even understand the bill. They have missed a excellent opportunity.

“Local builders are more highly regulated than these consultants who help sign off on massive developments and mines. That is an outrage.

“There have been serious questions raised about the integrity of some ecological consultants’ work for many years. Intentionally writing a flawed environmental assessment report can have devastating environmental impacts. It’s time this profession was brought into line with others of a similar nature.

“Some consultants, often under pressure, are omitting the presence of threatened species to get developments approved. I’m also hearing from consultants who have refused to bow to this pressure slowly being forced out of the market.

 ”The community has the right to expect that these people are doing their job with the highest integrity and professionalism.

 ”The Greens bill was about ensuring a level playing field wherever possible. Basically if there are consultants out there who are consistently producing suspect work they will be brought before a panel to explain and they may lose their accreditation.

“Since 1995, the Threatened Species Act has allowed for the Director-General of Environment to institute an accreditation scheme, but it’s never happened,” said Ms Faehrmann.

Download Cate’s briefing paper: ”Protecting our threatened species: An accreditation scheme for ecological consultants’.

Media contact: Peter Stahel 0433 005 727

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN [5.38 p.m.]: I speak in debate on the Government’s Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Bill 2011. A significant achievement in the Greens decade-long campaign is removing the influence of money from politics. I do not hesitate in joining my Greens colleagues in claiming a Greens achievement in the passage of this bill.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: You are taking out the unions.

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: We are not taking out the unions. The credit for this bill can be justly claimed by Greens campaigners, including Senator Lee Rhiannon and Greens donations expert Dr Norman Thomson, whose calm advice and incredible expertise in the area of donations reform truly made the Democracy4Sale project the world-class project that it is. It exposed the level of donations from corporations to political parties.

The Greens Democracy4sale project began in March 2002. Lee Rhiannon and Norman Thompson began a small research project to classify the top donor companies by industry sector, to see what influence political donations were having on the major parties. They estimated that the project would take about 30 hours. Several years and thousands of research hours later the project now analyses all political donations made to New South Wales political parties and presents this data to the public in a simple website that sorts donations to political parties by industry category. What an inspiring and revolutionary project Democracy4sale was. We can thank Democracy4sale in large part for the incredible situation we are now in, where the Premier of New South Wales has described the banning of corporate and organisational donations as “a reasonable, measured and equitable way to put in place a system of political participation in New South Wales that is more transparent and more accessible.”

This is the Premier of New South Wales adopting Greens policy, and I congratulate him and the Government for this. And so I remind the House that this bill’s key feature—a ban on all political donations from corporations and other organisations—is not only core to The Greens policy; it is an absolutely essential step towards ridding New South Wales of money politics, because we know that the influence of money on politics is insidious, to say the least. The reality that organisations and corporations can buy influence with policymakers and legislators is contrary to every democratic ideal and to the Australian mantra of a fair go. No, this bill is not perfect. And, yes, it does impact on affiliated organisations in the way some political parties have been operating. But, as the Hon. Trevor Khan has said today, this bill does not prevent organisations affiliating with political parties and will not prevent unions from affiliating with Labor.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Yes, it does.

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: No, it does not. It just gets the money from those organisations out of parties. We all know that as political parties we get funding of $80,000 per upper House member of Parliament to pay for administration for political parties. It is not as though Labor will not have any money if affiliated unions decide not to affiliate as a result of this bill. Of course, there has to be a price paid to get this type of reform through. But the hard fact of the matter is that we have to get money out of politics, and that will hurt. We understand that Labor and the Shooters and Fishers Party are not happy with us about this. Of course they are not. This bill impacts on those parties, and they have spoken at length about that. But, unfortunately, the road to cleaning up politics necessarily involves removing donations from not only corporations but all organisations, including unions.

As members have heard today, The Greens have discussed this matter at length and have prepared various amendments to the bill. But, as we have also heard today, the Government has not met with The Greens this year to discuss any of our amendments. However, I will put on the record that the Premier met with The Greens twice last year to discuss whether the Government would be open to supporting some of The Greens amendments that we believe would improve the bill. The Premier was not willing to agree on amendments at that time, and he has not been willing to meet with us more recently to discuss further amendments. This is unfortunate, as there are some amendments on which we could have found common ground with the Government in seeking to improve this bill, for example, with better enforcement measures.

However, as we have heard, the Government will not be supporting any amendments. So The Greens cannot support amendments that will ultimately lead to the bill being defeated in the lower House because, on balance, The Greens deeply held principle of cleaning up politics and getting money out of politics has to be upheld in this case. Therefore we have no choice other than to support this bill. That means, as my colleague Dr John Kaye has said, not supporting any of the amendments which will kill the bill, and Labor and the Shooters and Fishers Party know that.

I would like to turn now to one of the main arguments I have heard against this bill, that is, that it would impact on the ability of environmental groups to campaign. I have heard this claim ever since the bill was tabled—in private conversations I have had with members of this place and with members of the community outside it, in the media, and again and again today during this debate. The Hon. Robert Borsak said this bill would kill community groups, including “greenies”, to use his language. The Hon. Steve Whan, in his contribution to the debate, said that the online campaigning organisation GetUp! would not be able to run campaigns. That is simply not true. Organisations like the Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales, GetUp!, the Wilderness Society, the Australian Conservation Foundation and Greenpeace, et cetera, receive the vast majority of their donations from individuals, not from other community groups.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: But not all of them.

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: GetUp! is not a peak body. GetUp! has been used in this discussion; every member who has spoken in the debate today has suggested that that organisation’s environmental campaigning will be adversely affected. That is simply not true. GetUp! is an environmental group, not a peak body. However, GetUp! is a registered third party campaigner in New South Wales which receives most of its donations from individuals. Therefore, it will still be able to spend up to $1.05 million on political campaigning that is related to the State election, as long as that $1.05 million is from individuals. If this bill was going to impact on the ability of environmental groups to do what they do best—that is, to run environmental campaigns—they would have been making public statements to that effect. And those would have been very loud public statements—as environmentalists know how to do so well. They would also have been making submissions to the inquiry but they did not. No environmental organisations in New South Wales made a submission to the inquiry and nor did GetUp! Further, these groups made no comment, either publicly or to me, that they were worried about the impact of this bill on their work.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: So it only matters if they talk to you?

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: I am correcting misinformation, which has been spoken about at length in this House by members of the Labor Party, that this bill would affect environmental campaigning. That is simply not true. As for the State’s peak environment body, the Nature Conservation Council, it receives the vast majority of donations from individuals. Nothing in this bill will stop the Nature Conservation Council from using the donations it receives from individuals on electoral expenditure. Under the Act electoral expenditure is defined as:

… expenditure for or in connection with promoting or opposing, directly or indirectly, a party or the election of a candidate or candidates or for the purpose of influencing, directly or indirectly, the voting at an election.

However, many not-for-profit organisations have certain restrictions placed on them due to their charitable status, including the Nature Conservation Council and many other environment groups as well as thousands of other community groups. I am not sure whether all members are aware, but the Australian Taxation Office already restricts what type of campaigning not-for-profit organisations which are registered for deductible gift recipient status are able to do. Deductible gift recipient status means that organisations are able to take tax deductible donations. Many charities have deductible gift recipient status. Any organisation that has deductible gift recipient status is at risk of losing that status if its main purpose is seen as no longer charitable; in other words, if it is seen as a predominantly lobbying organisation.

We saw that happen when the Australian Taxation Office revoked the Aid/Watch organisation’s tax deductibility status in 2006. Thankfully, the organisation’s deductible gift recipient status was reinstated upon appeal to the High Court. So restrictions are already in place for many non-profit organisations when it comes to how much, and what type of, campaigning they can do during election periods. Let us remember too that third party campaigners will still be able to spend $1.05 million if they were registered before the commencement of the capped expenditure period for the election. That is a fair amount of money. Then there is an additional cap of $20,000 for expenditure incurred by a third party campaigner substantially for the purposes of the election of a candidate in a particular electorate. I would like to read out part of the contribution of Professor Anne Twomey to the inquiry:

The most contentious and vulnerable part of section 96D, however, is its application to donations to third-party campaigners. The effect is to prevent lobby groups from acting as third-party campaigners where they raise money for political campaigns from other groups with the same interests. Hence an association that represented the interests of shooters, pubs and clubs, environmentalists, religious bodies, or retail businesses, which would ordinarily receive its funding from rifle clubs, hotels, environment groups, churches or shops, would under section 96D be banned from receiving those donations and would be effectively neutered from running a political campaign during elections. This would leave the third-party campaigning field to big corporations, unless lobby groups were able to raise sufficient funds from individual donations from people on the electoral roll, which would be exceedingly difficult.

While I agree with this statement to some extent—and I thank Professor Anne Twomey for her excellent work in this area and for her contribution to the inquiry—I repeat that because of the way in which environmental groups in New South Wales are funded, section 96D will not impact on environmental groups to any significant degree. We have not sold out non-profit organisations, which The Greens have been accused of doing today. I am sure what environmental groups and most non-profit organisations would like to see is the political system cleaned up. They want money out of politics just as The Greens do.

As we heard from my colleagues Dr John Kaye and the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham, this is a very hard decision for The Greens. We have thought and talked long and hard about what position we will take on this bill. Our members have debated our position long and hard because of the tension this bill creates between one more significant step towards cleaning up politics and the impact it will have on affiliated organisations like unions—not environmental groups—and some political parties. The Greens support unions and the right for unions to be able to campaign. Let us remember that this bill will allow unions to campaign. It will still allow each union to spend up to $1.05 million during the election. It is disingenuous to say that The Greens have sold out unions or non-profit organisations by supporting this bill, which is one step closer to removing money from politics. The Greens support the bill.

453. Ms Faehrmann to move—
1. That this House notes that:
(a) sharks play an important role in the maintenance of healthy and productive marine
ecosystems,
(b) sharks are vulnerable to over-exploitation due to their biological characteristics,
(c) targeted shark fisheries all around the world have led to dramatic population declines,
(d) the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Shark Specialist Group
has determined the global conservation status of 64 species of pelagic sharks and rays
and classified 32 percent as threatened with extinction, primarily due to overfishing,
(e) the international demand for shark fin is rapidly increasing,
(f) New South Wales has a targeted shark fishery which supplies the domestic and Asian
shark fin market – the Ocean Trap and Line Fishery,
(g) there is a 110t limit for sharks in the Ocean Trap and Line Fishery in place until the end
of January 2012 and it is a condition of the Commonwealth Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 export approval for the fishery that this level of take
be reviewed by mid 2012 and for new shark management measures to be put in place,
(h) the CSIRO (2010) Review of Shark Catches in the Ocean Trap and Line Fishery stated
that the two main species targeted by the shark sector of the fishery, sandbar shark and
dusky shark have proved to be highly susceptible to population declines caused by
fishing mortality on reproductive adults across their range,
(i) the states of California, Hawaii, Washington and Oregon have bans on the possession
and sale of shark fins, and
(j) the Canadian cities of Toronto, Mississuaga, Oakville, Pickering and Brantford have bans
on shark fin, and
(k) the Bahamas, Honduras, Maldives and Palau outlaw targeted shark fishing in their
waters. Legislative Council Notice Paper No. 75—Tuesday 3 April 2012
4119
2. That this House calls on the Government to undertake an independent review of the ecological
sustainability of the trade in shark fins from sharks caught in NSW fisheries.
(Notice given 14 February 2012—expires Notice Paper No. 79

Photo: AnimalsAustralia.org

Extreme cruelty caught by undercover camera in a Sydney abbattoir highlights the need for CCTV to be mandatory in all abbattoirs.

A worker at Hawkesbury Valley Meat Processors worked with Animal Liberation to go undercover and secure shocking footage of fellow workers mistreating sheep, cattle, pigs and goats. It shows sheep being hung up and skinned while apparently still concious, and a man repeatedly belting live pigs over the head with a metal bar. The NSW Food Authority has ordered an immediate halt to animal slaughter at that abattoir and the RSCPA is investigating.

This follows the closure of an abattoir in Gippsland Victoria after Animals Australia obtained   heart wrenching footage of pigs huddled together while being stabbed in the eyes and ears with stunning equipment. One terrified pig tries to escape and is beaten to death with a sledge hammer. The abattoir was shut down within 12 hours of the footage being given to authorities.

On their website Animal Liberation remind us of Paul McCartney’s famous words “If slaughterhouses had glass walls everyone would be vegetarian.” While Animals Australia quotes Albert Schweitzer ‘Think occasionally of the suffering of which you spare yourself the sight.’

Transparency and accountability are certainly lacking in the meat industry. The Greens strongly support the call on Parliament to legislate for mandatory CCTV in all NSW abbattoirs. CCTV cameras should be installed and monitored by inspectors to improve accountability of slaughter practices.

Email Katrina Hodgkinson today and her to make CCTV footage mandatory in all NSW abattoirs office@hodgkinson.minister.nsw.gov.au.

Well done to the brave whistleblower, Animal Liberation and Animals Australia for exposing this awful cruelty.