Time is now
WHAT a disappointing government response from Minister Elise Archer in respect of establishing a container deposit scheme (The Examiner, January 4 ). Tasmania is now the only state not to have such a scheme, or on the way to introducing one.
Clearly, other state and territory governments can see public interest advantages, so why can't the Hodgman Government?
Around the world people are waking up to the appalling impact plastics are having on our environment, and demanding governments and businesses take steps to reduce their use and introduce more environmentally benign alternatives.
Container deposit schemes have proved an effective way to reduce the number of plastic bottles and containers that are so carelessly discarded every day.
Not a good look for a state that likes to market itself as being clean and green.
It's high time a container deposit scheme was finally introduced here.
Anne Layton-Bennett, Swan Bay.
THE concern over the collection of plastic bottle refund scheme should be seen to be in the public interest.
The collection would see the removal from the environment an item that it mostly responsible for the deaths of marine mammals and birds. When it comes to Europe, the concept of landfill with our waste products doesn’t exist. They recycle.
The experience of seeing the collection of plastics containers in NSW recently along the Parramatta River is impressive with little to no plastic bottles evident where there is an incentive to collect such items.
Phil Boughton, Riverside.
Minister Elise Archers’ comments on container refunds are short-sighted.
Of course, a refund scheme is in the public interest, we are all sickened by roadside filth, and I dispute that it is not cost effective.
South Australia commenced in 1977 and charities alone have benefited by $60 million. NSW collected one billion items in its first year.
A recent visit to little Tumut revealed an enthusiastic queue waiting by the return and earn machine for their choice of electronic bank refund, supermarket voucher, or charity donation.
Obvious benefits are much less litter, cleaner waterways, less landfill and for us fed-up volunteers – more quality free time.
State government, stop procrastinating, just fix it.
Moira Wellman, Legana.
Food van trials
IN RESPONSE to Launceston mayor Albert van Zetten (ABC, January 1) over the trial of food vans in the Brisbane Street Mall.
He stated the argument that local traders pay for the lease of premises, pay taxes, water rates, council permits, employ staff permanent and casual, sponsorship for sporting clubs and so on.
These traders look to shoulder season to offset their costs due to the dormant trading during winter months.
If I was still a member of the Launceston Chamber of Commerce the writer would be supporting local traders.
The late Jack Chambers when chamber chief executive went in and battled the council for local traders, that is why he had the largest membership ever of the chamber of over 600 members.
The writer would venture to say his membership record has not been matched.
Brian P. Khan, Bridport.
THERE are two perfectly logical positions on pill testing at concerts.
One view says that if the risk is lowered then young people will be emboldened and more will take pills which could actually increase deaths.
The second view says that pill testing will save lives without increasing usage.
The risk comes from the unreliability of concentration of the drug, batches can vary from less than normal to three times normal concentration which is deadly.
Only actual pill testing trials can determine which of the sensible but intuitive views is correct. The UK has pill testing, the USA to a limited extent and there have been trials in Australia.
In all cases there were fewer deaths, deadly doses were identified and in the longer term as in the UK, there has been no evidence of increased drug usage due to pill testing. Are we to be guided by the reality of pill testing as determined by trials around the world or the armchair naysayers who draw on no empirical or experiential evidence at all?
Robert Karl Stonjek, Kings Meadows.
AS a leading Islamic state recruiter Neil Prakash has established his credentials as a terrorist and is certainly eligible to undergo criminal proceedings. However, stripping him of Australian citizenship when his Fijian citizenship is in doubt is questionable.
In the case of refugees in offshore processing areas, the Australian government has already shown its willingness to outsource social justice to other countries such as New Guinea, Nauru, Cambodia, the United States and even New Zealand.
It seems that pilate-like hand-washing is alive and well within the leadership of our country. Dumping Neil Prakash onto Fiji is yet another example of how Australian justice continues to be sub-contracted to other countries.
As a sovereign nation, we are obliged to look after all our citizens – the good, the bad and indifferent, and ensure that our justice system is mature enough to handle everyone.