THE PRESS FRIDAY, AUGUST 13, 1976. Taxes and the litter makers

Press, 13 August 1976, Page 12

THE PRESS FRIDAY, AUGUST 13, 1976. Taxes and the litter makers

The litter which is still cast around New Zealand in large quantities is offensive, sometimes dangerous, and a constant reminder that many New Zealanders still think nothing of squandering rather than conserving the country's resources. Any idea that might decrease the amount of litter on the streets and countryside of New Zealand is worth considering. The latest suggestion to come from members of the Canterbury Environment Centre is a tax on packaging. The advocates of such a tax believe that it would encourage manufacturers to use packing materials more frugally and, where possible, to resort to returnable containers. The tax would also, they suggest, provide the funds needed to clean up litter and to support antilitter education.

But, to take the example of flip-top drink cans which are a major litter problem, a tax would have to be unacceptably high to encourage manufacturers to revert to returnable bottles. Consumers already pay extra for the convenience of having their drink come in a can and would probably be willing to pay considerably more when convenience is important to them. To have a significant effect on the forms of packaging manufacturers use. the tax would have to be set very high and this would have undesirable side effects.

A packaging tax has drawbacks, but the. results of the investigation which a representative of the New Zealand Soft Drink and Cordial Manufacturers’ Association is to make of the scheme in Washington State deserve close attention. Under this scheme a levy is imposed on packing

materials at their source of supply. The proceeds from this levy are used to ensure that the materials are disposed of properly or. w’here possible, reused or recycled.

But no evidence from Washington is likely to remove the major objection to a packaging tax: that it must fall unfairly. Such a tax would penalise those who are careful not to cast litter. They would, in effect, be shouldering part of the burden of paying for clearing up the mess left by the careless. simply because they are also users of packaging materials. If more money is needed to keep the country free from litter it would be more fairly taken from general funds; though some might be raised by imposing stiff tines on people guilty of creating litter. The law already provides for quite steep fines for the offence, but the law is still inadequately enforced. Continuing efforts to persuade New Zealanders that dropping litter is a slovenly, anti-social, and expensive habit remains the most practicable way of reducing litter and discouraging waste. It is natural for keen environmentalists, discouraged by the small effect that education campaigns against litter seem to be having, to look for ways of achieving more rapid and spectacular results. But other schemes, apart from strict enforcement of strong litter laws, have so many complications and drawbacks that they are best treated warily. The refundable charge on bcttles is not sufficient to prevent all people from leaving returnable bottles on the streets: this is surely evidence that putting a higher price on cans and cartons is not going to change the habits of the litter makers.