  |
Village news on the net
Write
to
 |
|
|
GENERAL DEBATE Wednesday, 7 December 2005 Last week Meadow Fresh ended the supply of milk in glass and closed the last plant in the country capable of producing that. It was a decision opposed by a number of councils, businesses, community organisations, and individuals, yet within the present economic framework it was almost inevitable. Closing the bottling plant in Christchurch will cut costs and boost profits by externalising waste disposal costs on to local communities. Why should Meadow Fresh not do that, in one sense, because every other milk producer did it years ago. The decision contravenes the New Zealand Packaging Accord 2004 and its objective of reducing packaging waste, but that is a voluntary accord and is not intended to disrupt business. That is precisely the problem. This Government, like Governments in the past, is protecting corporate subsidies by failing to introduce legislation that makes businesses pay their way. That distorts the market and puts businesses that have an ecological ethic at an unfair disadvantage. Don Brash is trying to protect the same corporate subsidy with his campaign to axe the future by smothering the carbon tax. Let taxpayers pay the clean-up tab for big business, he says. Let our young people and our environment carry the cost of the fossil fuels that we burn today. Forcing local bodies to pick up the tab for the collection, compaction, and disposal of single-use milk containers is nothing more than a corporate rort. Milk producers, like so many others, are forcing local communities to subsidise their shareholders. The cost to the community is not just economic but has significant environmental and social impacts, as well. The loss of the glass milk bottle almost certainly means the loss of the home delivery service. When glass milk bottles were taken out of circulation in the North Island, home delivery ceased in most places. Once loyalty to glass bottles was gone, consumers bought milk at the supermarket. Those with limited mobility, such as the elderly and those with disabilities, who depended on the service, simply did not represent a sufficient market to maintain the service. My conversations with vendors have indicated that despite the assurance by Meadow Fresh that it would support vendors, the company’s treatment of them has, in fact, been a source of considerable ill feeling. The decision by Meadow Fresh to require bulk purchasing for other non-milk products has further undermined the viability of those independent operators. Meadow Fresh has claimed an environmental benefit from single-use Tetra Paks. It says that glass is heavy to transport around the South Island and that washing involves lots of caustic soda, water, and energy. But there is, of course, a simple reply. The caustic solution is reused many times. In addition, it can be chemically neutralised in a simple process and returned back into the environment. In comparison, Tetra Paks are imported from Scandinavia. Trees For Canterbury reuses about 30 percent of the Tetra Paks coming through Christchurch, but it cannot handle all of the cartons now, never mind another 25,000 as a result of axing glass bottles. Tetra Paks cannot be recycled in New Zealand at all; they must be re-exported to Australia and then to Asia. The fusing of plastic tops on to card bases makes them even more difficult to recycle, and not cost-effective for most operations. I met last week with Ross Townshend, the operations manager of Rank Group, to discuss these matters. Meadow Fresh has to make business decisions within the prevailing economic framework, and, in his view, the business case is compelling. That is why I say to this House that we need to change the framework and legislate for extended producer responsibility. For more information Nandor Tanczos, MP, 021 887 011
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||