Josh Wilson (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for the Environment) Share this | Hansard source

I'm glad to make a contribution to the debate on the recycling and waste reduction bills 2020, and I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes the Government's poor handling and chronic delay in delivering meaningful regulatory reform for waste management and product stewardship in Australia".

In essence, this package of legislation formalises a state of affairs triggered by the China sword policy and subsequent developments that have meant countries in our region—Malaysia and Vietnam, as well as China—will not receive Australian waste for recycling in the future. But Australia needs to go much further than that if we are to take full responsibility for our waste, reduce its serious and unsustainable impact on our environment, make use of it as a valuable resource and show leadership in our region. These bills establish a framework for the phased ban on the export of certain waste materials, and they also absorb the regulatory framework previously contained in the Product Stewardship Act 2011 while making some minor substantive changes to product stewardship.

There's little doubt that one of the reasons for the export bans we are required to put in place is that the waste material we've been exporting was of relatively low quality and involved relatively high rates of contamination. What's worse, while we assumed the material was going offshore to be recycled, the reality is that in some cases the rubbish was being burned, buried or thrown into rivers. It would rightly appal people in our communities to think that the plastic they were putting in the yellow-topped bins for recycling was being baled and transported to another country where, in fact, the rubbish contributed to local environmental damage and perhaps even became marine plastic that found its way to our part of the world.

As we put in place new export ban arrangements, I think it's fair to observe that it's the decisions taken by other countries that have forced us here in Australia to recognise that what we call our waste recycling resource management system has to a considerable degree been a collection and transport system. Our achievements when it comes to the key measures of a more-sustainable approach—namely, to avoid creating disposable products, to reduce waste material, to reuse as much as we can and to recycle what can't be directly reused—have been fairly slight.

To take plastic as an example, because it represents a particularly harmful fugitive and long-lasting material, on a per capita basis we generate more than 100 kilograms of waste plastic a year, and yet we recycle barely 12 per cent. Globally we know that 10 million tonnes of plastic go into the ocean each year and that's expected to triple by 2040, not least because global production of plastic is galloping ahead. Global production of plastic has increased 20-fold since the 1960s. It's going to triple again by 2040. Microplastic is already accumulating in fish and birds, and there's evidence that in some parts of the world it's accumulating in humans. That is very, very far from the expectations of the Australian public. As a nation, when it comes to waste we are still a long, long way from the expectations of our community, especially young people. And we're a long way from supporting the ambitions and the efforts of innovative companies, switched-on community enterprises and forward-looking local governments around Australia. We also have no strong basis currently for hoping and expecting that other countries, including developing countries in our region, will make dramatic progress to reduce plastic pollution when a developed country like our own is performing relatively badly.

Let me be clear in saying that Labor supports the passage of these bills because of the commonsense and the necessity of the export bans, but we wish that this legislative package had taken the opportunity to do substantially more than that. I do take the opportunity to thank the assistant minister for his active and constructive engagement on the legislation. While I have a strong view that more needs to be done, it needs to be done differently in a number of respects, I recognise that the member for Brisbane has a long-standing and a genuine interest in this area of policy and he wants to see change. I'm grateful that we're able to achieve agreement to a number of amendments, which will be proposed and considered in due course. Of course, I wish we had been successful in getting a few more changes over the line.

It's right that this legislative framework should be subject to a five-year statutory review period, rather than the 10 years initially proposed. Let's not forget that the statutory review period of the Product Stewardship Act, which is being subsumed in this package, fell due in 2016 and that wasn't delivered until this year. As we remember that, a number of the key waste targets we have before us fall due in in 2025.

I'm glad amendments will be proposed that make the process of granting exemptions to the export licence requirements more transparent. I'm particularly glad that the consultation requirements with respect to the minister's priority list will be strengthened and expanded in their scope. While Labor believes there should be an independent statutory body charged with this responsibility, as the product stewardship advisory committee was previously, it's important that the government's new Product Stewardship Centre of Excellence be a mandatory point of reference. It will be for the government to ensure that the centre is structured and resourced in a way that allows it to provide uncompromising advice based on independent, environmental and industrial expertise. As I say, there are other changes we believe should be considered by way of amendment, especially with respect to the issue of harmful and unnecessary plastic and packaging, and we'll get to that.

I also repeat the broad point that Labor believes a more comprehensive reform of product stewardship regulation is required and, unfortunately, that can't be achieved, in our view, by spot-fixing these bills. Having said that, I want to acknowledge the work of the National Waste and Recycling Industry Council, the Waste Management and Resource Recovery Association and ACOR for their engagement with the opposition—and I'm sure with the government—on these bills, and for their leadership more generally in the cause of achieving a paradigm shift in Australia's waste and resource management industry. This is a sector that employs 50,000 Australians and it contributes over $15 billion annually to our economy. It's already a significant industry and a large employer and it will be better for all of us if it grows considerably in the future.

I thank the Boomerang Alliance, Sea Shepherd, the WWF and the Plastic Free Foundation for the enormous effort they've made, and continue to make, in building community support for the change we desperately need in order to live sustainably and to live without poisoning our environment. It's a good thing that we're finally looking to take greater responsibility for our own waste. Judged on its own terms the export ban framework is broadly sensible and workable. Of course, it gives effect to an approach agreed by the Commonwealth with the states and territories. But what we need to hold on to as we make this reform is how much more there is to be done and how little has really occurred since Labor stepped into the national leadership space by creating the national waste strategy and accompanying Product Stewardship Act a decade ago.

On that basis, I have to say it was a little bit odd to hear the Minister for the Environment make the claim when introducing these bills:

… I'm incredibly proud to introduce this package of legislation—representing the first time ever a Commonwealth government has shown true commitment to taking on this important environment, and economic, policy reform.

That is frankly hard to reconcile with the fact that, from 2013 to now, in the seven years of this government, precious little has been done on waste and recycling. Really we as a community are only lucky that, as with climate change and renewable energy, the states, territories and even local governments have responded to the inaction of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government by stepping up their effort. Labor went to the election last year with a commitment to introduce a national container deposit scheme. Fortunately, it is now the case that container deposit schemes are being implemented by states and jurisdictions around the country. But how much better would it be if this was being done on a coordinated and harmonised national basis?

When we talk about a sustainable approach to waste, it is not long before we find ourselves talking about the concept of a circular economy. That is not what we have now in Australia. What we have now is a linear economy that results in an unsustainable drain on resources, with a corresponding impact on our environment. What we have now is an economy that sees limited materials sunk into ultradisposable products, many of which are used for only a few minutes before being chucked away. It is senseless and unsustainable. It is quite literally a waste.

By contrast, in a circular economy, materials are seen as a resource to use minimally and to reuse and recycle to the maximum degree so that in many cases the products we make and use are part of a closed circle. In addition to being environmentally responsible, moving to this approach holds out the prospects of creating new resource-recovery and manufacturing opportunities and related jobs.

But at this stage we have to be realistic and acknowledge that we are not very far along the circumference of that circle. Our economy is still one in which resources and materials are used and wasted in greater and greater quantities and, in some cases, are being used and wasted at a faster rate. So, in terms of our ambition to create a circular economy, taking the step of banning the export of certain materials is a relatively small one and we should hold on to that.

Beyond that step it does get harder. Firstly, we have to ensure the material doesn't simply get stockpiled or put into landfill, and both have occurred over the last couple of years as our ability to export waste has disappeared and various industry players have found themselves in trouble, either financially or in some cases through fires that affected our already limited infrastructure. Beyond that we need to make pretty substantial strides in a number of areas, and I'm going to outline a few of those.

Firstly, we need a large jump in scale when it comes to our recycling and reprocessing infrastructure, and that requires appropriate strategic investment. That is No.1. Secondly, we need to support demand for recycled materials and related products, and that requires procurement policy. Thirdly, we need to fix the market failure so that producers take responsibility for the life-cycle costs of their products. In some cases they may be required to meet certain design and material specifications. This can only occur through effective product stewardship regulation. Fourthly, we need to improve consumer awareness and the means by which Australians can know and judge the recyclability and the recycled content of various products. That will enable higher recovery rates and mean people will know what to do when they are throwing things into their yellow bins. It will enable the proper disposal and sorting of rubbish in the first place, which will make the lives of our recycling operators and their operations easier. But it also means consumers will be better able to support products and producers that do the right thing. The producers themselves and the manufacturers that do the right thing can justifiably market their genuine achievements. For all that to occur—consumer awareness, proper marketing and proper disposal instructions—we require a better approach to product labelling.

On infrastructure, according to the report commissioned by this government, Australia currently has less plastic recycling capacity than it did in 2005. The same analysis suggested that in order to respond to the export bans that we are now contemplating we would need an increase in recycling infrastructure across the board of up to 400 per cent. But, even though the government knows the magnitude of the problem, it has been achingly slow to address the shortfall.

We should remember that, after last year's election in August, when the Prime Minister was overseas talking about Australia's leadership on waste and ocean plastic, it turned out that the so-called $100 million recycling investment package wasn't a lot more than a sticky label affixed to existing Clean Energy Finance funds. When we asked about that in December last year, we discovered that the ministerial direction needed to create the guidelines for the fund hadn't occurred. When we followed up in May this year, it turned out that not a single dollar had been loaned to support recycling infrastructure through the CEFC. This week it's been confirmed in Senate estimates that the CEFC funding remains untouched. It's also been confirmed that the $20 million National Product Stewardship Investment Fund has not yet made a single grant. So, of the $120 million of the Prime Minister's $167 recycling and investment package announced in May 2019, not a single cent has been advanced. That's 72 per cent of that package which was first announced in May 2019, nearly 18 months ago.

Since then, in the middle of this year the government made another announcement in the form of the Recycling Modernisation Fund. The programs do sound similar, but at some point we have to hope they function differently, because, if you keep announcing funds and no money flows to support infrastructure and address the waste crisis, we're not going to see the change that we need.

In any case, as we now seek to increase infrastructure capacity, we must do so strategically. Australia is a large country, and we're not likely to be able to sustain infrastructure at a viable scale in every state and territory jurisdiction. That means governments and industry must consider planning for transport logistics and costs as part of their long-term strategy on a coordinated basis.

I also say that, while it's very welcome that some large companies, including companies in the beveraging and packaging business, have made commitments to increase reprocessing capacity. We do need government to be clear eyed about how the system as a whole develops. The lesson to be drawn from the current failed and broken market is that government must be prepared to shape and maintain a system that delivers on clear principles. It must be sustainable. It must protect the environment. It must protect Australian consumers. It must be fair between the various jurisdictions in Australia and between people in urban and regional Australia. It must not lurch from being one kind of dysfunctional market to another.

On procurement: we start by recognising that, while we can look to increase the quality and the quantity of recycled material, if there's no market for it, there's going to be a big problem. Government procurement is one way of building demand. The other way is through recycled content requirements. At the moment, we are seeing neither. In March the Prime Minister held the National Plastics Summit, with the only announcement of any substance being a promise to improve Commonwealth procurement guidelines, and we are still waiting for that to occur. It's in the government's National Waste Policy Action Plan that procurement guidelines with targets will be delivered by the end of 2020. It's nearly the end of October, and we are waiting to see those guidelines and those targets—targets that should be by volume, by value or by both.

On product stewardship: we have to get a serious move on when it comes to ensuring that producers take responsibility for the life cycle of their products, especially when they are particularly wasteful or environmentally harmful. That's the essence of the broken market as it stands: those costs and that harm that comes from poorly designed products that end up in our environment, our waterways and our oceans are not being borne by the people who make them and profit from them; they're being borne by the environment and all us. It is the definition of a market failure.

In the decades since Labor created the platform for product stewardship regulation, not a lot has occurred—certainly nothing since 2013. It's currently the case that the minister updates a list of targeted products annually, yet on very few occasions have any of the several environment ministers within this government taken the opportunity to talk about product stewardship in this place. The five-year review of the Product Stewardship Act, which fell due in 2016, was supposed to be provided in the beginning of 2018 but actually arrived in July this year and didn't contain much that we didn't already know.

It's rightly acknowledged that the one co-regulatory scheme in existence, Labor's National Television and Computer Recycling Scheme, has worked pretty well. It's also recognised that voluntary schemes have been underwhelming, underperforming and beset by free-rider problems. Yet not one new product has been listed for a co-regulatory or mandatory scheme since the government was elected, and even the accredited voluntary product stewardship schemes have fallen from two down to one—I know that's about to change. It's also worth noting that, even with the computer and television scheme, there's been a consistent issue with compliance, and that's an important part of these kinds of regulatory arrangements. The government, unfortunately, responded by cutting the staff employed in the relevant section from seven, back in 2013, to three recently.

Despite the need to improve product stewardship and despite the long delay involved in getting us to this reform opportunity, this package of bills does not substantially change the existing product stewardship framework. Now, instead of simply updating the list, the Minister for the Environment will have the ability to make recommendations and outline a time frame in which she expects those recommendations to be acted upon. It's an improvement, but it's a small improvement. It's essentially, on the face of it, a waggle-the-finger and tap-the-watch kind of mechanism. How well that works remains to be seen. It doesn't inspire a lot of confidence, based on what we've seen to date.

Finally, the current situation with respect to disposal and recycling labels is a real mess; nobody could argue with that. Results of a recent independent audit showed that 50 per cent of products had no disposal labelling whatsoever; only 40 per cent had a recycling claim, though in some cases the recycling claim was unclear or wrong; and only 28 per cent of Australian products used the Australasian Recycling Label, an initiative launched and partly funded by the Morrison government. We need to do a lot better in the labelling space. I know the assistant minister is focused on that.

In conclusion, this bill puts forward a reasonable approach for formalising the fact that other countries will no longer take our waste for recycling. We have to face up to the fact that we have drifted along for a long time with a severely underdeveloped resource management system. The legislation is, however, a missed opportunity to do what needs to be done on a more comprehensive basis.

The government, since the last election, has made a song and dance of its intention to do something serious about waste and recycling. I think that's because they're more inclined to do something in this space than in other areas of environmental importance. We know they're not particularly interested in climate change. There hasn't been a lot that's encouraging with respect to the review of the EPBC Act to date. The two key recommendations of the EPBC reviewer, Graeme Samuel, were national standards and a properly resourced independent agency with teeth. That second, key part of the recommendations was dispensed with before the interim report hit the desk. So the government wants to make a virtue of waste and recycling. But we're still waiting to see that change. We're going to see these export bans, but we're waiting to see all those other things happen—infrastructure, procurement, product stewardship.

In the meantime, all the targets in the glossy strategy documents that we all read grow closer to their target dates without getting closer to achievement. We're supposed to see 70 per cent of plastic packaging recycled by 2025—50 per cent recycled content. But, on the 70 per cent of plastic recycling by 2025, we're currently at 16 per cent, and it's going to be 2021 in a couple of months time. We're supposed to see the elimination—the elimination altogether—of problematic and unnecessary plastics by 2025. It's very hard to see how that's going to happen, the way we're going, and at some point in the not-too-distant future we're going to have to be upfront with the Australian community about that.

It isn't hard to find examples of positive action in relation to waste collection and local clean-ups. It's not hard to find examples of local businesses that are seeking to model responsible and sustainable conduct. It's not even hard to find inventive new processes, and innovative businesses that are seeking to be directly involved in the task of waste reduction and the recycling and reuse of existing resources. I'm certain that, in the debate that follows, almost every single coalition speaker is going to name-check various businesses or organisations in their electorate that are part of this effort—and they should, because those organisations and those businesses deserve recognition—but we cannot get away from the big picture, and the big picture isn't pretty.

We know what's easy: it's easy to pretend that waste is not a massive environmental problem and market failure and to pretend that, in any case, we'll deal with it by a few nifty innovations, by asking business nicely or, in some cases, by treating business to a few stern words of encouragement. We also know what's hard. What is hard is to plan and deliver serious and meaningful progress through reform on a national scale, because that requires leadership and action at the national level and it means substantial change to the way we do things now. We're dealing with a fundamentally broken market and a very poor set of waste outcomes, and all the beatific statements about innovation and enterprise are not magically going to fix that. If the government can't admit that to itself—if we all can't admit it to ourselves—and take the requisite steps to get Australia on a better path then we'll continue to pollute our environment, we'll fail to show regional and global leadership, and we'll miss out on the jobs that should be part of a circular economy.

See this speech in context