Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I applaud the government for this bill, the Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill 2020. It's a good bill. It's good that we're taking responsibility for our waste. It's good that we're moving towards a circular economy. It's also good to see all of Australia's governments have been able to agree on something. So I think this is a positive initiative.

However, regrettably, it's a very small step. And when I say we're moving towards a circular economy, it's a very small step in that regard, and it's a missed opportunity to address a number of other really important related issues. I encourage the government to turn its mind—I see the minister coming into the chamber right now; I'd ask the minister to turn his mind—to other, equally important dimensions to this broader issue.

For a start, we need much better product stewardship law in this country. I note we do have the Product Stewardship Act 2011. I note that it has recently been reviewed and the government will be responding to that review, and acting on it, hopefully. I would remind honourable members what this mysterious 'product stewardship' is. It's an approach to managing the impacts of different products and materials, acknowledging that those involved in producing, selling, using and disposing of products have a shared responsibility to ensure those products and materials are managed in a way that reduces their impact, throughout their life cycle. It's particularly relevant to commodities that you can't, basically, put in your kerbside recycling bin. Things like tyres, mattresses, batteries and e-waste are all good examples.

The problem with the current act is that it's a combination of voluntary, co-regulatory and mandatory provisions, when, really, I suggest the Commonwealth should introduce mandatory product stewardship for all necessary items and not be relying on voluntary measures. The fact is that the current voluntary targets have simply failed to deliver results. In fact, the National Waste and Recycling Industry Council would be pleased to see mandatory stewardship laws, mandatory measures that would ensure whole-of-life consideration of a product by the manufacturer: for example, the labelling and packaging requirements or the requirements relating to recycling, recovering, treating and disposing of products—basically, giving the producer of an item ownership of that item right to the end.

I'd also like to see a ban on single-use plastics, and I'm confident that I speak for a great many Australians—in particular, in my own electorate of Clark—who want to see decisive action and a ban on single-use plastics. Of course, this bill today does not ban single-use plastics. This bill would have been a good opportunity to implement a phase-out of single-use plastics, including of soft plastics like Glad wrap, to use a brand name; of plastic bottles, when, indeed, we could return to the lovely days of glass bottles and only glass bottles, even glass milk bottles; and an opportunity of doing away with single-use takeaway containers, single-use knives and forks, single-use cigarette filters and microplastics that are made of goods that can't be recycled.

We also need the Commonwealth to set the example and take the lead. In fact, peak waste-management bodies have consistently called for the Commonwealth government to take the lead by committing to procurement of recycled materials. The export ban should have been seen as an opportunity to create genuine Australian markets for Australian recycled materials. For example, it would be easy to mandate that federal government departments use recycled materials in things like road surfacing and street furniture—material used in construction. I suggest a mandatory 30 per cent target for procurement of recycled goods by federal agencies would assist in the creation of a strong remanufacturing sector and show leadership for state and local governments, who hopefully would legislate their own mandatory requirement for the minimum amount of recycled materials.

To that end, earlier this year I moved a private member's bill. It was the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Amendment (Sustainable Procurement Principles) Bill 2020. That, in fact, did require in the bill that at least 30 per cent of a government agency's procurement of goods for a financial year be recycled. Importantly, my private member's bill also requires government entities to purchase consistent with sustainable procurement principles. In particular, the purchase of goods or property that can be re-used, repaired or recycled should be considered when making procurement decisions. It also said that government agencies should use goods that include recycled should be given preference when making procurement decisions. Hopefully, you can achieve a lot more than 30 per cent. Also, abide by the sustainable procurement principle that environmental impacts should be minimised when making procurement decisions by choosing goods or services that have lower adverse impacts associated with any stage of production, use or disposal. Finally, government agencies should consider that fair and ethical sourcing practices should be applied when making procurement decisions by ensuring that suppliers of goods and services are complying with social and legislative obligations, including obligations to employees. This all sounds well and good and sounds like just the sort of thing we should be pursuing, but that bill was not selected for debate and decision by the House of Representatives, and I think that was a great decision by the government. As far as I'm aware, it didn't have the support of the opposition either.

I suggest we also need to harmonise our container deposit scheme. I thank the minister for the time he took several weeks ago to brief me on how we got to this stage nationally with our myriad container deposit schemes. I do note the explanation from the minister that the schemes in all of the different jurisdictions have all sorts of different histories and there are all sorts of sensitivities, and it might not be as simple as having a national container deposit scheme. But I do take this opportunity to urge the minister again that, if we're going to rely on harmonising existing schemes rather than having a national scheme, the pressure is on the federal government to harmonise those schemes as quickly as possible. It does seem that that is on the horizon now that every jurisdiction has or is getting a container deposit scheme, I think we have a very real prospect, with strong leadership from the federal government to, indeed, harmonise those schemes.

I'll also raise something which may not have been raised in this place before: the merit of making appliances repairable. Now, this has been raised with me by a number of constituents. They are dissatisfied with the fact that you can just go to one of the big shops like Kmart, or Target or Big W and buy a toaster or jug for 10 bucks or a rice cooker for 20 bucks. They are pretty good except, when they break down, they can't be repaired and they're thrown out, creating waste—often waste that contains quite precious commodities and is highly toxic in the environment. I would note that the EU has a right-to-pair regime. It requires manufacturers to create repairable goods and to provide spare parts for up to 10 years. I think there is great merit in the government considering doing that. It's all well and good, particularly if you are on a low income. It's very handy to be able to buy a very cheap kitchen appliance, but, if the right to repair was cleverly designed, it would probably be cheaper to repair one of those items than to go buy another $10 toaster, $15 rice cooker or whatever.

I'll wrap up by making the point that, as good as this bill is—and it is good—it doesn't go very far. The cynical amongst us might say there's a little bit of greenwashing going on here, because there are so many pressing environmental issues in this country that aren't being addressed. The obvious one is climate change. In the Federation Chamber earlier today I spoke about the urgent need for strong action on climate change, and I laid out my argument, in the little time I had there, that, really, we should be on a credible pathway to 100 per cent renewable energy in this country and to zero net carbon emissions, and that that is in fact achievable. Renewable energy is affordable—in fact, it's cheaper than building new coal-fired power stations or gas-fired power stations—and it's reliable. This nonsense that renewables are good only when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining is a nonsense because there are so many technologies that can plug the gaps or can store the energy from when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining. Pumped hyrdo is probably the most obvious example, but there are other technologies that can be used to store energy when there's an abundance, say during the day and when the wind is blowing. There are so many other technologies, such as geothermal, wave, tidal and green hydrogen.

There is the still unaddressed issue that this country needs a whole new environmental legislative framework. It was quite upsetting the other day, in the most recent sitting week, when the government went ahead with its push to devolve the EPBC Act to state and territory governments. The state and territory governments have proven time and time again that they can't be trusted to look after threatened species and the other issues covered in the EPBC Act. This country needs a whole new legislative framework, one that is at the national level, is totally independent and takes the ability to intervene away from the federal minister. It needs a legislative framework that will genuinely protect our flora and fauna, in particular our threatened species; our rivers; and so on.

Finally, on what is needed for the environment in this country, apart from looking after waste, apart from addressing climate change and apart from having a whole new environmental legislative framework to protect flora and fauna, we've also got to do something finally about animal welfare in this country. Time and time again it has been shown that the state and territory governments can't be trusted to care for our animals. Time and time again it has been shown that self-regulation by certain industries can't be trusted. What a nonsense it is that the egg industry says that 'free range' is no more than 10,000 hens per hectare—that is, one square metre per chook. It should be at least 10 times that. There's an example of where an industry can't be trusted to be making its own rules or, at least, guidelines. How many times do we have to see the cruelty to animals in the racing industry, which is self-regulating, where animal welfare is mixed up with gambling and profit? It doesn't work. So there's another area to do with the environment and our flora and fauna where the government needs to act.

We need to have an independent national office of animal welfare that is removed from the government so it can't be interfered with by the government, that can look at animal welfare in all its forms in this country and that has powers to investigate and to punish those who would be cruel to our animals. I'm talking not just about the live animal export industry. I'm talking about animal welfare in all its forms—on the farm, in the home and in the gambling and recreation space. It needs to be a body that can crack down on systemic cruelty in the thoroughbred racing industry, the steeplechasing industry, the trotting industry, the greyhound racing industry, the industrial production of eggs and pork and the puppy farms that are churning out puppies and kittens. No wonder places like Ten Lives, in my electorate of Clark, are bracing not only for the spring kitten-breeding season, which is upon us now, but for all the dumped kittens they'll get a month after Christmas, when the novelty has worn off and families move on.

I've covered a lot of ground here. I do want to commend the government for this particular bill. It is good as far as it goes. But, heavens, there's a lot of work still to be done. There's a lot of work to be done with mandatory product stewardship laws, banning single-use plastics, having greater Commonwealth procurement of recycled goods, harmonising our container deposit schemes and making appliances reparable, and then there are the big issues: fixing the climate, protecting our environment and protecting our animals in particular.

(Quorum formed)

See this speech in context