Backyard Aquaponics
A place to discuss aquaponics

around Gosnells plastic coke bottles get recycled....with black spray paint inside lol

Ok, that is a very good point and something else you see happen in Germany - they have pfand (a similar deposit scheme) of up to 25 euro cents per bottle, and i did see people going though bins to collect bottles while i was there.

It isn't cokes problem. They make a product and sale it legally. What people do with that product afterwards is not cokes problem. That would be like suing GM because people drink and drive. It is a typical big government solution that does nothing. You want to fix it make the penalty for littering extreme.

Sounds good Helomach... but you ahev to catch the "litterer" in the act to prosecute them... and the costs in doing so... would I suggest far outweigh any fines collected... and would it actually acheive any great reduction in "littering"anyway...

Whereas a deposit refund scheme... has been proven to significantly reduce the amount of containers left within the environment.. regardless of whether or not it's due to reducing the number of "letterers"... or as a result of others colleting and cashing in the litter...

Most of the supermarkets have imposed a coin return trollety scheme.. to combat the problem of lazy arsed people just dumping their shopping trolleys...

Usually a dollar.... and it's proven extremely successful... in modifying behaviour... yep, people who wouldn't walk 20 metres to return a trolley before... will do so... to redeem their whole 100 cents...

I suspect many people will actually recycle the containers.. to refund the deposit cost... and the price increase imposed on the product accordingly... and refund given when redeemed... jsut doesn't add any real impost on Coke, or others anyway.... It's a nonsense... and the legal challenge to the NT law.. was even more nonsense...

It's not like Coke, or others.. actually have to do anything.. other than perhaps adjust the price.....

I'de be only too happy to pick up every bottle that dumbassed lazy litterbugs chucked out along the road if i got 10c for every one. I collect at least 12 stubbies on my farm each week from those litterbugs that are too scared of their wives finding out that they have had a few on the way home. I will be taking rego numbers now as I have a mate in the council that can issue fines. Hello, see you coming with your flags and bright fluoro numbers on your cars!! Im sure a photo sent to the company will sort em out. Camera ready for the action photo of the illegal disposal!! WA has to be the most dirtiest as far as disposal of bottles. All along country roads. I went around Australia years ago and I saw people riding bikes picking up bottles on the side of the road in SA. The roads look so clean compared to ours. Go to the lovely Broome and see the amount of bottles littered. It is just shocking. Bring on the refunds. Having said that,I am amazed at the amouint of money that I find each year that nobody bothers with. I will pick up 5c if i see it . Over the last 10 years I have found over $200 in just found money from 5c to $20. Ok I am a scrooge!!

I kinda skimmed through all this and saw a few of the points i wanted to make, mainly that why coke in particular? I saw pics with disposable llighters and all sorts of other plastic.

Any deposit should have a mandatory increase. 5 cents per bottle doesn't have the same incentive that it did 30 years ago.

Might i sugest one course of action? There was at least one photo that showed a dead bird with at least 1/2 dozen bottle tops inside. We should all send that photo to coke and other bottling companies and ask them to attache the cap to the bottle by a simple neck ring. It could also be sent to your legislator and ask then to make it mandatory for caps to be attached to the bottle.

Any bird large enough to devour a cap along with a whole bottle deserves to die as i would not want that thing circling over my house!

The answer you seek is in the initial post:
...because Coke is the company that fought the legislation in court and had it repealled.

I would be interested in actually reading the decision... I wonder what persuaded the court - or if they weren't "persuaded" per se then what did they find legally bound them to a decision they might not otherwise have held?

Either way, since Coke won, those who are angry at Coke for winning should - just to be fair - also be angry with the court, and disagree with their reasoning (or in the second-ish "we didn't agree but found we were bound by law" scenario, then they should also be hacked off at whatever relevant legislature wrote the applicable law).

Although I believe I do have a "solution" of sorts, I'm going to take the coward's way out of this by leaving that as a bald assertion and not elaborating on it. Here's why:

1) I enjoy this forum too much. I guarantee that there are many people here who there is at least a decent chance they'd never communicate with me again if I elaborately detailed out my specific views as to the cause of and solution to general littering problems, and

2) I've seen too many threads on other forums (and in fact "the entirety of other forums" to be blunt) get overtaken by "everything is a political topic" ranting. (Phys.org, I'm looking at you!) And in fact, I'm an offender myself, to be honest. I don't want to see that happen here. If it is going to, I'll be powerless to stop it.

I don't mind contributing to "small-p" political discussions, of course, and will continue to do so. But - speaking for myself - any further elaboration of my own views has attached to it the grave and near-certain danger of giving extreme offense to people I don't care to offend, and who would have every right to view such a rant as a "CAPITAL-P" Political diatribe.

Litter is a problem, yes, or at least it certainly is in some areas and can be in all. I'll leave my part at that (yeah, I know, "real profound there") and am going to go back to discussing AP systems.

My apologies if I've already given offense to some.

The court ruled on the "legality" of the law in question... not on any ethical or environmental basis...

And yep, that implies that perhaps they legislation might need to be reviewed... and that is what is probably going to happen... especially if the public protest continues...

Not as bad as I thought, only held before one Judge of the Federal Court. This is the reason they lost

MUTUAL RECOGNITION ACT 1992 - SECT 3

Principal purpose
The principal purpose of this Act is to enact legislation authorised by the Parliaments of States under paragraph (xxxvii) of section 51 of the Commonwealth Constitution, and requested by the legislatures of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, for the purpose of promoting the goal of freedom of movement of goods and service providers in a national market in Australia.

You will note the NT asked for a Commonwealth Act to regulate this. They are now trying to enact legislation (State) which conflicts with the Commonwealth Law.

Introduction

The principal purpose of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 (Cth) (Mutual Recognition Act) is to promote the goal of freedom of movement of goods and service providers in a national market in Australia (s 3). Consistently with that purpose, that legislation creates what is described as the “mutual recognition principle”. In broad terms, the effect of that principle is that, subject to certain exceptions and exemptions, goods produced in or imported into a State or Territory that may lawfully be sold in that State or Territory may be sold in another State or Territory without having to comply with certain “further requirements” relating to sale imposed by or under a law of the second-mentioned State or Territory. Those further requirements include standards relating to the goods themselves (such as requirements relating to their production, competition, quality or performance) or the way the goods are presented (such as requirements relating to their packaging, labelling, date stamping or age). Various exceptions to the mutual recognition principle are set out in the Mutual Recognition Act, with the consequence that, despite the mutual recognition principle, there is an obligation to comply with any State or Territory law covered by any such exception.
The issues for determination concern the interrelationship between the Mutual Recognition Act and a container deposit scheme (the Scheme) established by the Northern Territory legislature under the Environment Protection (Beverage Containers and Plastic Bags) Act 2011 (NT) (EPBC Act). One of the practical effects of the EPBC Act is that wholesalers (such as the applicants) must use recyclable or other approved material in particular containers containing beverages. Another practical effect is that those particular beverage containers must bear an approved refund marking which conveys information about refunds for empty approved containers which are presented at an approved collection depot for recycling, reuse or other appropriate disposal. The refund amount for an approved container is currently 10 cents. Scheme participants must also implement and maintain waste management arrangements under which empty containers that have been returned to collection depots in exchange for a refund are then recycled, reused or disposed of appropriately.
The primary legal issue is whether the requirements imposed by Part 2 the EPBC Act on the sale of beverages in containers in the Northern Territory are in conflict with or are repugnant to Part 2 of the Mutual Recognition Act. Further issues are whether, if there is any relevant conflict or repugnancy, any provisions of the EPBC Act are invalid and what relief should be granted.

Ahhh... A swimming pool for the Vaucluse house... or an all expenses paid European trip maybe?

If the govt really cared for the environment they would just ban PET.
Until then, I blame consumers, they want everything for a price...

PET will not be banned, it is what "polyester" clothing is made of, it is used for too many things other than drink bottles.

What I meant was its probably easy to get round. If it had been the High Court ruling on an inconsistency between State or Federal Legislation and the Constitution, that would be really really difficult.

If they banned PET, what would our IBCs and barrels be made out of???