Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak about the Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill 2020. I do so, proud of the state that I represent, South Australia. We were one of the frontrunners, one of the first states to introduce recycling back in the seventies, recycling bottles, then tins, then plastics. We've been a leader in this area for many, many years, before most of the other states. With such a proud track record from state Labor governments, we on this side are pleased to support these bills. We've seen in reports from all sorts of inquiries and research that's been done that there is absolutely no time to waste when it comes to recycling and dealing with the world's waste products. We produce so much of it, everything from plastics to cement and a whole range of other things. This is a step in the right direction, but we need to do a lot more.

When you think of the products that we buy, manufacture, consume and use, there is tonnes and tonnes of waste that is not being reused, every single day. Everything from using your credit card—when you look at what goes into those credit cards and the waste material that comes out of it—to batteries to plastics to straws—the list is endless. So we will be supporting this bill, and it is, as I said, a major step forward in developing a regulatory framework to encourage responsible waste management in partnership with industry.

Since 2011 we basically haven't seen very much done by this current government. We've done virtually nothing to build on the progress of the 2011 Labor reforms that were brought in when we were last in government. What we've seen is seven years of wasted time in terms of actually implementing legislation to deal with the reality of waste. It's a shame that it took a ban on imports from overseas countries—China and several other key nations—for this government to act on waste and recycling. It's hard to take the government seriously on this topic. Their signature election commitment is a $100 million recycling investment fund. This is nothing more than a repackage of the existing Clean Energy Finance Corporation's fund. Over a year since it was first committed to, the fund remains absolutely untouched. In other words, not much has happened in this area, and it's clear that there is a serious deficiency in Australia's recycling capacity. Indeed, there is less capacity to recycle plastic than there was in 2005. That gives you an idea of the time that we've wasted in terms of dealing with and getting on with this particular issue.

It's fair to expect that designers and manufacturers of products will take responsibility for mitigating their environmental impacts by seeking to reduce waste in the first place and also by enabling re-use and recycling, incorporating those costs into their business models. Here is a great example. Those of you who have young families and grandchildren—in my case grandkids—when you buy presents, think of the amount of rubbish that is packaged into it, from rubber bands to plastic material to cardboard boxes that aren't reusable, there is an area here where we can do so much more by putting a responsibility on the producers of those products to deal with the incredible waste that they put around the product that you're actually buying.

On the set of targets to be achieved under the National Waste Policy of 2018, the looming deadline and lack of progress calls into question the government's wait-and-see approach. There's no doubt that the much-needed progress on waste and recycling requires national leadership, and it is only with national leadership that we will achieve the recycling of waste. There's absolutely no doubt that it's much needed and that progress on waste and recycling requires stewardship and leadership from this place.

We on this side of the House started the process of creating the National Waste Policy in 2009. We also established the National Waste Reporting Process and introduced the Product Stewardship Act 2011. We are glad to note that the long-delayed statutory review of the Act confirmed the fundamental value of that policy by Labor, particularly in relation to the National Television and Computer Recycling Scheme. I recall quite well being with the minister at the time, Don Farrell, when we went to one of the first outlets for recycling in my old electorate of Hindmarsh and had people delivering TVs and a whole range of older electronic equipment. That has been a good success, but we still need further improvements to compliance and outcomes.

I've got to say we lack the ability to sustain a domestic recycling market that will protect our environment and meet the expectations of the community. When I go around the electorate and speak to people, there is a thirst for recycling. People want to recycle, but we, as a government, have to make it easier for them. We need to be able to protect our environment and meet the expectations of the community. Go to any classroom in any school and speak to any student: they get it; they understand it really well. As I said, there's a thirst out there for recycling. We just have to put the mechanisms in place to assist industry, manufacturers, retailers and the consumer to actually do all of these things.

Up to eight million tonnes of plastic make into it the world's oceans every year. We've all been made aware recently of the plastic in the oceans. Global consumption of plastic could triple by 2040. So we have a monsoon to deal with. We have a monsoon that needed to be dealt with yesterday, not tomorrow. This government has shown a lack of will to deal with this issue. After seven years of being in this place, it is just tinkering with it. We need real results and we need them now.

In Australia, we only recycle 12 per cent of plastics—not a half, not a quarter, but 12 per cent—and 58 per cent of waste in total. Some analysis indicates that Australia is going to need to increase its local plastic reprocessing capacity by 400 per cent just to effectively recycle and reprocess its own waste into a useful and valuable resource. Australia has a very poor record on plastics, yet we stand to be heavily affected by plastic pollution in our oceans. After all, we are an island nation surrounded by oceans. We have fisheries and we have people and industries that depend on clean oceans, and we have a duty to do all that we can to keep those oceans as clean as we can. One of the mechanisms to do that is to have good recycling legislation in place. As with the issue of climate change, if we can't lead by example, we're not doing our best to build regional cooperation in reducing plastic across the Indo-Pacific. In opposition, we continue to be critical of the government's lack of action on waste. It has been a regular occurrence through the shadow minister. We have a track record on this. It's not something that we just tinker with. It is a core value of Labor to deal with the environment, especially recycling.

I'll go back to my own state, South Australia. In comparison to other governments' lack of action in recycling, successive South Australian Labor governments have ensured that South Australia has led the nation in recycling. I'm very proud, as I said earlier, of South Australia's achievements. South Australia is actually recognised as one of the world's leaders when it comes to waste management. The UN found that South Australia's waste management was global best practice. South Australia's waste management achievements were recognised in the UN publication Solid waste management in the world's cities, which assessed the waste and recycling systems of more than 20 cities worldwide. The publication reveals that South Australians are highly environmentally conscious. It states: 'South Australia has demonstrated a high level of political commitment and willingness to stick its neck out and implement some policies and legislation upon which other administrators take a more conservative position.' There is no room to take a more conservative position when you look at the figures I quoted earlier and the tsunami that is about to hit us when it comes to waste.

The Zero Waste SA Act and plastic bag ban, both introduced by a Labor government, are two excellent examples of South Australia's government showing leadership by putting in place arrangements that support a major drive downwards towards the three Rs: reduce, reuse and recycle. Part of South Australia's success in recycling has been our nation-leading container deposit scheme. This was introduced in 1977. It's been very effective in reducing litter, increasing resource recovery and reducing waste that would normally go into landfill. We did that in 1977, whereas other states were still debating this only a couple of years ago. South Australia was the only state or territory which had a scheme for 35 years, until the Northern Territory introduced one in 2012. New South Wales and Western Australia have introduced similar schemes, and Queenslanders were able to collect cash for returning bottles and cans from mid-2018.

In 2006, South Australia's scheme was declared a heritage icon by the National Trust of South Australia and, as a result of the scheme, South Australia has the lowest percentage of drink containers in our litter scheme of the entire nation. So that is an area where, if you take action, you can reduce some of these waste products. About 580 million drink containers are recycled in South Australia every year and the government said that the states waste and recycling sector employs almost 5,000 South Australians, so we can not only reduce waste and recycle but also actually grow jobs through the recycling industry. I can see it everywhere I go, when I go to recycling plants, in the amount of people that work there.

Another example of where South Australia has led the way under Labor leadership was our plastic bag ban. In 2009, SA became the first state or territory in the nation to introduce a ban on single-use plastic bags. What a great thing that was. You see people going to the shopping centres now with their hessian bags and carry bags. I always keep a few in the car in case I have to stop off at the supermarket. It makes a difference, and it's something that you need leadership from federal and state governments on, especially from this place, to turn the psyche around and get everyone thinking about recycling and waste. The successes of these schemes show that, when you have the right leadership, you can make significant reforms that will again fit both the environment and the economy.

Of all the states and territories in Australia, South Australia is known to have the highest percentage, at 76.5 per cent, of waste being recycled or composted. I read out the figure earlier of 12 per cent. That shows leadership by successive Labor governments in SA, where we have turned it around. That should be a model for the rest of Australia, to look at ways we can reduce our waste and those plastics in our waterways to ensure we have a pristine ocean and a great environment to hand over to the next generation of Australians, because we owe it to them. We absolutely owe it to them. What we've seen here today, or not just today but through this government over the last seven years, is that there is a lack from this Morrison government.

Before I finish this speech, Mr Deputy Speaker, I'd like to draw your attention to the state of the House and the number in the House.

(Quorum formed)

Bridget Archer (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm very pleased to rise today to speak in support of the Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill, especially in National Recycling Week. It's a great opportunity to also talk about the fantastic things that are happening in waste reduction and environmental management in my electorate. Late last year I was very fortunate to have the Assistant Minister for Waste Reduction and Environmental Management, Trevor Evans, visit the Northern Tasmanian community to show off the innovation that's already occurring in the waste and recycling sector from local businesses and organisations including Envorinex, Flat Out Bottles Tasmania, George Town Neighbourhood House and the George Town Council Waste Transfer Station.

I've previously been on the record highlighting the incredible work of Envorinex, a Tasmanian owned and operated company. They provide innovative and proven polymer product solutions for national and international clients, recycling a range of products such as silage wrap, IV bags and tubes from hospitals, and poly pipe and plastic waste from horticulture and fish farm operations. They're also an important employer in north-east Tasmania and play an integral role in the local economy. The Morrison government recognised the potential for Envorinex to grow and expand, and funded over $700,000 towards a second factory as part of its regional jobs and investment package. The second factory officially opened last year and has more than doubled its workforce, with nine new permanent jobs created, which is a significant boost and a big win for jobs in Northern Tasmania. The plant is the first of its kind in the state and can process 500 kilos of soft plastics each hour. The company expects to process more than 1,500 tonnes in the first year, with the plastic to be turned into new products including fence palings, posts and rails, and roadside safety products. Importantly, the plant produces very little waste itself. Organic cast-offs from the collected plastics are used by potting mix manufacturers, and the water used by the factory is 100 per cent recycled. It's very pleasing to see that Envorinex is soon to expand to Toowoomba, with a new recycling plant that will process up to 8,000 tonnes of material every year.

And it's not just big business demonstrating innovation in this field. There are many smaller businesses, including Flat Out Bottles in my electorate, who are making great strides. In a state renowned for our incredible wine, Amelia and Darren Clarke, from George Town, recognised an opportunity to reuse the countless empty wine bottles. Over the past two years, they have used a kiln to transform the bottles into cheese boards and candle holders. They have built a successful and profitable business and they are diverting glass from the waste stream.

It requires all levels of government to create long-term change in this area, and I applaud local councils across the Northern Tasmanian community for joining forces to launch the digital platform ASPIRE, which has been described as 'Tinder for waste'. George Town, the City of Launceston, Meander Valley, Break O'Day, Flinders Island, West Tamar and Northern Midlands councils have all signed on to the platform, which will divert tonnes of waste products from landfill, working on circular economy principles and connecting producers of waste with those who can reuse, repair, remake and recycle the products. ASPIRE was started at the CSIRO and has worked with hundreds of councils and businesses across Australia to drive environmental and economic benefits. One example of a manufacturer of yeast for the baking industry saw it divert more than 160,000 tonnes from landfill to feedstock for supplements for nearby farms and produce electricity via methane power from biodigestion. The financial and environmental cost benefits were also substantial, with the company saving more than $40,000 per year in getting the waste to landfill, and preventing more than 3,000 tonnes of landfill and more than 700 tonnes of carbon dioxide, and saving more than 60,000 litres of water.

Our government's groundbreaking investment in waste management and recycling will drive greater investment in recycling businesses and platforms like these. Creating a sustainable future requires effort from every single one of us and creating change here in Australia rather than relying on countries overseas to deal with our mess—the mess that we have created. The new landmark laws stopping Australia exporting our waste and establishing a national industry framework for recycling do just that. As the Prime Minister has said, it is our waste and it's our responsibility. This new legislation will end 645,000 tonnes of waste plastic, paper, glass and tyres being shipped overseas each year. It's an enormous figure, but we can no longer kick the can down the road. Our investment also builds on the onshore capacity of our recycling industry, so that we can reprocess our waste here in Australia and turn it into valuable resources and new products. At the same time, the reforms to the regulation of product stewardship will incentivise companies to take greater environmental responsibility for the products they manufacture and what happens to those products and materials at the end of their life.

Overall, a billion dollars is being invested to transform Australia's waste and recycling industry and to move towards a circular economy where waste is a resource to be collected, recycled, reused and converted into valuable new products. These reforms will create 10,000 new jobs over the next 10 years—a 32 per cent increase in jobs in the Australian waste and recycling sector—many in regional Australian towns like mine. My island state will positively benefit from this. Our plan will divert 10 million tonnes of waste from landfill. We have to deal with it, recycle it, repurpose it and reuse it here in Australia to drive those jobs in the recycling sector and to improve the quality of our environment.

It's an enormous opportunity for positive environmental outcomes and creating economic development potential, and these principles are already being embraced. It's not just business and local government who are paving the way in recycling and waste management. As we've heard already, many schools are becoming increasingly involved in looking at ways to reduce waste and educate students in the process. I've talked previously about the efforts made by the wonderful Riverside Primary School in northern Tasmania, but I was thrilled to see the efforts undertaken by the leadership team at Brooks High School. Earlier this year, I was contacted by Brooks High School who were seeking donations to purchase recycling bins for their school, which led to a visit to the school and a meeting with the year 10 leadership team to uncover the details of their project. I'd like to read an extract from an article written by the leadership team: 'We've decided that it's time to focus on the specific issue of recycling and come up with solutions on how to better our environment. The main goal is to implement recycling bins around the school and analyse the way it benefits not only the environment but also every student's education. This project is important to everyone who attends Brooks High School, as it allows a freedom in making their own crucial decisions.' This year, students have been interested in creating a sustainable and environmentally friendly school by implementing recycling bins in every classroom. The recycling project is a step to creating a clean and safe environment for the northern Tasmanian and Brooks High School community. Implementing recycling bins around the school for every student to use benefits the earth while creating an educational experience for everyone to learn from. The recycling project leaves a strong legacy that will impact the school as well as the community. I commend the leadership team and the staff of the school for their commitment to recycling, ensuring a positive legacy for the school community for years to come.

As part of my visit to the school, I brought along Trish Haeusler from Plastic Free Launceston to discuss their organisation's focus on what is an important component of the issue of waste and recycling: a focus on just using less. Plastic Free Launceston do a wonderful job of hosting workshops and information sessions for businesses, community groups, schools and individuals on how we as individuals and as a society can begin to use less and take on responsibility for a material that will be around long after we are gone. Trish and her team of volunteers offer practical advice on finding alternatives and, more importantly, on how we can change our behaviours so we begin to decrease the amount of plastic we leave for the next generation. Consuming and using less plastic is a critical component of this discussion if we want to create long-term sustainable change.

From my decade in local government and now as a federal member, I have seen the enormous challenge presented by the waste we generate and the challenges of dealing with the problem. I've also been fortunate to see the development of several waste and recycling initiatives, and it's become an area of interest and passion for me. I'd like to thank the member for Corangamite, Libby Coker, for joining with me to create the inaugural Parliamentary Friends of Waste and Recycling. Thank you to all of those members of this place on all sides that've joined that group already. A launch is coming soon so watch this space. We all need to do more. This bill is an important step forward for our economy and for our environment.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm happy to speak on the Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill 2020 and the amendment moved by the member for Fremantle. In the time remaining I could sum it up for those who want the Reader's Digest version, because it's been said by all those who spoke before me—personally—we need to reduce, reuse and recycle. That's the simple message. But obviously government, in a Federation with states and territories and local government, is much more complicated and takes lot of leadership.

I'd also draw people's attention to a recent Four Corners that focused on plastics and many of the innovations, trials and tribulations that've taken place in the United States in terms of what needs to occur. There are some scary things that're going on out there basically in terms of big plastics commitment to increase the use of plastic whilst we've got schools, we've got local governments, we've got farmers, we've got individuals, we've got so many people that are making that personal effort to reduce the amount of waste they create, to reuse the waste they can't avoid and to recycle those products into useful materials wherever possible. On that level much good is occurring, but we do have greed and, I would have to say, a government that isn't as strong in this area as they could be. This government is now in its eighth year of government but we haven't seen the leadership that we need when it comes to waste and recycling.

At the last election Labor took a commitment to introduce a national container deposit scheme. We know how that has changed things in Queensland. I heard the member for Adelaide talk about how South Australia had been a leader. I know that in Queensland we saw the recycle fee available in South Australia. I saw that when I was a kid 30, 40, 50 years ago. Queensland eventually, under Premier Palaszczuk, did bring in a scheme and what have we seen? Lo and behold, there is suddenly value in waste and the behaviour has changed. Now I see all sorts of people at the recycling centre in Salisbury and Acacia Ridge in my electorate where people have made it a part of their daily program. At night I hear the recycle bins being rummaged through by people looking for those containers. We put a value on the waste and people are taking advantage of that.

That's why at the last election Labor did take a commitment to a national container deposit scheme. Unfortunately, we haven't seen a commitment from the Morrison government as yet. I note that they did have a recycling summit. And there is a commitment to an inquiry under the member for New England and the member for Cunningham, the deputy chair. I'm on that committee that is looking at things. Sadly, sometimes there can be a big press release, a big announcement, claiming something as action, but I think sometimes the king of social media fails to actually show leadership in the real kingdom where on a day-to-day basis people are making decision about the food they buy and how it's presented.

Fortunately, the states and territories have implemented container deposit schemes. As I said, I congratulate Premier Palaszczuk for the leadership in that area. Obviously we are federation. It would be much better if there were a harmonised and coordinated national scheme. For the people who produce food products, and the labelling thereof, it would be much better if there were the carrots and sticks of federal government when it comes to a national container deposit scheme.

We do need a sustainable approach to waste. A container deposit scheme is something practical, but it's just the beginning, as those people know. I've got an 11-year-old son and a 15-year-old son and just explaining to them what goes on in what container—what goes in the compost bin and what goes in the rubbish—and when and how is a constant conversation. I won't name my wife as being someone who needs education, because that would-be inappropriate, obviously, but we do need people to be informed.

Thankfully, as all of the speakers have indicated, schools are doing the educating. Schools are doing the hard yards in educating students. There is great hope, I think, in that next generation that is coming, but we need to make sure that they have a planet to inherit. It already looks like they are being left a planet that has nowhere near the advantages that we have. We already know that they're going to be struggling economically, with people graduating from school this year facing incredible debts should they go to university and incredible debt as a nation—$1 trillion of debt. Then not leaving them a sustainable planet would be an extra burden for that generation to carry.

We need to start talking about a circular economy, where materials are used minimally and reused and recycled to the maximum degree, eventually creating a closed circle. That is crucial because the market mechanism in terms of where the profits are to be made work against that. That is why we need leadership from government. This sustainable approach not only is environmentally responsible but will create resource-recovery manufacturing opportunities and jobs.

This sustainable, circular-economy approach is not what we have in Australia currently, despite the efforts of those farmers, councils, schools and the like. We currently have a linear economy where our limited materials are used in products which are then disposable, so disposable in fact that they could be put on a ship and sent to Malaysia, China or Vietnam and then burned in paddocks over there. We didn't have a recycling industry. We felt good about putting waste in the yellow bin, but we might as well have taken it out in the backyard and burned it. We would have been putting fewer emissions into the air because it wasn't put on a ship and steamed across the ocean to be burned or dumped in the river to eventually come back to us in the ocean. So we do need to do much more than this linear economy.

Our resources are being used in much greater quantities and being wasted much faster. Some of these products are being used for only minutes before they're thrown away as unrecyclable waste. Obviously this is irresponsible and unsustainable, but, because we have good logistics, we can put them in a yellow bin and suddenly absolve our conscience or think that we were able to do it, but really that plastic has been coming back to us in some way, shape or form. Sadly, each Australian on a per capita basis is producing about 100 kilograms of plastic every year and ingesting large amounts as well, unfortunately.

What is going to happen to that waste that we previously exported? We don't want it to end up in landfill or to be stockpiled. That is not a viable alternative. There is action that can be taken now and needs to be taken to ensure we process our waste. Investment in recycling and reprocessing infrastructure is a big part of it. We need to support the demand for recycled materials, rather than just rely on the market. We need to ensure that producers take responsibility for the life-cycle costs of their products. That may include making sure that manufacturers use packaging material that can easily be recycled. We need effective product stewardship regulation. That will have costs for individuals. You will need to consider that cost when you purchase something.

Part of this is consumer awareness. For our domestic recycling systems to work, consumers need to understand what they can recycle and how it should be recycled. Effective consumer awareness will give Australians a choice when they're purchasing products so that they can choose the environmental footprint of their everyday purchases. Consumer awareness will provide economic support to producers who are genuinely trying to increase the environmental sustainability of their products. Labelling should be much clearer, indicating what is recyclable and what is not, so that we know what bins to send something to. Consumer awareness will ensure proper disposal and sorting of rubbish by families. Hopefully that will create less stress and an easier job for recycling operators.

Australia's plastic recycling capacity is lower now than it was in 2005, and that is a national disgrace. A recent expert study shows that plastic in the world's oceans is expected to triple by 2040—to triple in the next 20 years. By 2050, it is estimated that the weight of plastic in the oceans will exceed the weight, the biomass, of fish. Eight million tonnes of plastic end up in our oceans each year, and that, as microplastics, is appearing in 50 per cent of some fish and marine birds. And this is why we need to do so much more. (Time expired)

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to 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)

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

[by video link] We've got a huge problem with waste in this country, and a lot of it has to do with plastics. We use them once and they're designed to be thrown away. What we've found out is that when you throw them away a lot of them end up in the ocean. Worse than that, a lot of the time we put plastics into the recycling bin thinking they're going to be turned into something else but find out that our recycling system is an absolute mess and a lot of plastic ends up getting dumped. Sometimes it gets put on a ship, is shipped to another country and is then dumped. Now we have the outrageous situation where even here in Australia there is a proposal to just burn it, supposedly turning it into energy, instead of either finding ways to recycle it or never producing it in the first place.

So, when the government said they were going to take action on the enormous amount of waste in Australia, and in particular take some action on recycling, a lot of us were pleased. We were pleased that the government, after many long years of turning a blind eye to this problem, might actually come up with a proposal to do something. It's pretty clear what it is you need to do if you want to get on top of the waste crisis; in particular, the plastics crisis but also the other forms of waste and the fact that we don't recycle them. It's pretty clear what you'd need to do.

Firstly, you'd need to ban single-use plastics—single-use plastics that we see in the form of wrapping for vegetables in supermarkets and sometimes even wrapping for individual vegetables and fruit, and single-use plastics that we see in many forms of packaging. They are made to be used once and then thrown away. Now, of course, there might be some instances where single-use plastics are critical, for medicines and the like, and of course we should have exceptions for those, but for broader use we should not have single-use plastics, because there are alternatives. To allow a product to be made that is designed to be used once and then thrown away is wrong. So we should ban single-use plastics. If we're serious about tackling the recycling crisis and the waste crisis, we would do that.

Secondly, we would also make the corporations that produce a lot of this waste, whether it's plastic, glass or cans, responsible for looking after it at the end of its life. This is sometimes called product stewardship, which means that you can take the products back to the place that they were made, or to some other place, and they're responsible for looking after them—because, if you've produced something that could end up as waste, then you've got a responsibility to look after it when it reaches the end of its cycle, because you've made some money out of it. So one obvious form of something like that is a container deposit scheme, getting a deposit back on your bottles and your cans, something that the Greens have been pushing for a very, very long time but that the government hasn't yet taken action on nationally. That is one thing you could do.

You could also start making other corporations responsible for taking back some of their products—either take them back to recycle them or have them required, by law, to repair them. That would be a good thing to do to ensure that products that were produced by corporations had to be looked after at the end of their life as well; you couldn't just produce them and then close your eyes to them. So you'd ban single-use plastics and you'd have some laws that required corporations to look after the waste product at the end, either by taking it back or fixing it, or by finding a way to turn it into something else.

Also, thirdly, if you were serious, you'd put recycling targets in law. We've had a good look at this. The Greens, through Senator Peter Whish-Wilson, initiated a wide-ranging Senate inquiry into waste that had a good look at what you would need to do. One of the things that became clear was that, unless the corporations who are responsible for producing a lot of this waste are required by law to do something about it, voluntary action just won't work and won't be enough to tackle the crisis at the level that we need to tackle it.

But this bill doesn't do any of those things. This bill does not do any of those things. What this bill does, though, is consistent with everything that the government has done so far, which is help give some money to big corporations and just hope they will do the right thing. So, in this bill, there are no required standards imposed on corporations who produce waste. The only thing in this bill is that waste can't be sent overseas. That's basically the main legally binding obligation. There are no legally required recycling targets, but there is a ban on sending waste overseas.

Part of the problem with that is that it could, in fact, work against itself. If you don't have a great recycling industry in Australia and you don't have all those legally required obligations that I've just set out for big corporations to take back some of their waste and turn it into something else or to find ways of not using single-use plastics and instead come up with recyclable materials—if you don't make the top of the chain responsible for dealing with the waste they create—plus you just ban everything going overseas, that might in fact, counterproductively, drive the so-called waste-to-energy industry, which just means burning plastics and turning them into electricity. Because there will then be a stack of it here on Australian shores and there won't be any legally required target for less waste to be produced, there will be places looking for ways to deal with this waste and they'll be coming up with not ways of recycling it, not ways of reducing its use in the first place, but ways of just burning it—and that is crazy. That is crazy. But this bill, because it doesn't contain those other elements, might in fact drive the burning of plastics here in Australia. It's consistent with the government's approach to everything, which is to not put legally binding requirements on corporations but just give them a bit of money and hope they'll do the right thing. It hasn't worked when it comes to trickle-down economics and it's not going to work when it comes to recycling, either.

Let's go back to some of the points that I made at the start. How ironic that the biggest legislative reform to waste management in a decade doesn't even mention plastic packaging. We all know what a problem that is. We all see it in the supermarkets and in the shops: single-use plastic packaging designed to wrap something up and then be thrown away, or single-use plastic bags. We all know it's a problem. This bill does not deal with that. Everyone is trying to do the right thing on this front. People keep their plastic bags in their cars and reuse them when they go to the shops. We try to cut down by remembering to take our bags. We don't always remember to do it, but everyone tries their best.

At the end of the day, one thing we could do is not produce these plastic pieces of waste in the first place. Why? It's estimated that at least eight million tonnes—tonnes!—of plastic makes its way into our oceans every year. Eighty per cent of marine debris is plastic. Numerous studies have clearly shown that the majority of plastic pollution found on Australian beaches is produced and consumed locally. So most of the plastic that our marine life eat and that kills them, and the plastic that ends up washing up on our shores as well as into our oceans, is produced and consumed locally, but this legislation will go nowhere near the urgent action needed to combat Australia's contribution to the plastic pollution currently choking our oceans.

These bills could be a valuable opportunity for the government to not only strengthen our response to the waste crisis, but, importantly, to address how we produce and consume waste, particularly plastic, in the first place. That's why the Greens believe that, if the government were serious about tackling plastic pollution, the Prime Minister would amend this bill to deal with those points that I raised at the start. When the Senate inquiry looked not only at this legislation but at the issue of waste generally, there was consistent feedback from stakeholders, including environment groups, local government and the recycling industry, that these bills don't go far enough to properly tackle our waste crisis and, in particular, our contribution to plastics in the ocean.

Without product stewardship, which, as I said, is making corporations responsible for the products they produce, and without mandatory targets, which is what key recycling industry stakeholders and local governments are not only asking for but saying is required if you want to drive down waste in Australia, this bill really does nothing more than repackage some existing obligations on producers in Australia. Also, it really just continues the government's theme of dressing up something in an announcement, but, when you look at the detail, you find it doesn't actually do the job and in fact might work against it.

The Greens have got answers to this. We have led on this in this parliament and we have a private member's bill in the Senate that would go far enough and that has received overwhelming support from the recycling industry, from the environment groups and from various governments across Australia. Our bill would introduce mandatory national targets—a requirement that corporations actually do something rather than hope that they will, the hope that hasn't turned out very well so far. Our bill would ban the most problematic single-use plastics found in the ocean. And we strongly believe that, unless there are binding provisions, we are going to be back here again in a few years having the same discussion.

The government should adopt the Greens bill, but, if the government is not going to adopt the Greens bill and side with our war on waste, then the government needs to accept our amendments. The Greens have circulated a number of amendments in the Senate that will strengthen this legislation. They would establish a mandatory product stewardship scheme for plastics and packaging and they would also ban the most problematic single-use plastics. We are pleased that the government has already taken note of some of the amendments, and we have seen them here in the House, but a lot more needs to be done. We urge the government to agree to some more, sensible amendments to the bill, because it will make a real difference to our oceans and, at the end of the day, that is what this is about. This is about making sure our oceans, amongst other things, are healthy. This is a big, big part of the reason for this bill. It is to stop plastic ending up in the oceans, as well as other places—our waterways, our creeks and our rivers—and to stop it ending up in landfill.

But we especially want to make sure that our plastics don't end up in the oceans killing marine life. To do that we're going to need a ban on single-use plastics, because that is a big part of the problem, and we're going to need some legally binding requirements on the producers and on the industry in this area. Just hoping that big corporations will do enough hasn't worked in the past. It's not going to work this time. The government has already, clearly, judging by the bill and the amendments, listened to the Greens in some respects and has adopted some of our proposals. We urge the government to pick up the rest of them. If the government doesn't want to do it here, we will move them in the Senate. Tis may be our best chance to tackle waste and to rein in the pollution that is choking up our oceans and our waterways. I urge the government, and the opposition and the crossbench, to have a close look at the Greens' amendments to this bill that we'll be pursuing in the Senate so that it has some teeth and we finally take some real action on recycling; make big corporations have some responsibility for looking after the products they sell, and make money out of, when they reach the end of their lives; and, most importantly, make sure we look after our oceans.

Trevor Evans (Brisbane, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Waste Reduction and Environmental Management) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm very pleased to sum up the Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill 2020 and associated bills. These laws will become Australia's first-ever National Recycling Act. These are significant bills which I've had the privilege of helping to develop alongside my friend and colleague the Minister for the Environment, Sussan Ley, and alongside the recycling sector, environmental groups, industry and experts. These bills will give Australia, for the first time, a comprehensive and national framework to improve recycling, reduce waste and achieve better resource recovery.

I thank honourable members who have contributed to the debate on these bills. These bills will accomplish better environmental outcomes in Australia and across our region, keeping waste out of landfill and out of our waterways and oceans. These bills will also achieve economic benefits. Australia will be creating value by transforming waste streams back into valuable resources. This better, smarter way of dealing with waste creates jobs, value and prosperity. Our nation can become more self-reliant and self-sufficient in key industries including manufacturing and remanufacturing.

A few short years ago, indeed for most of Australia's history, federal governments in Canberra were not especially involved in waste and recycling. When Australians put their bins out on the kerb, what happens next has always been—and remains—a key responsibility of state governments, who, in turn, have often devolved it down to their local councils. Yet there are many reasons why our government is the first federal government in Australia's history to step so heavily into waste and recycling policy. Recent events have proven that there are, increasingly, national and international aspects to waste and recycling. When we see waste here in Australia being shipped not just around the world but also trucked or transported hundreds or thousands of kilometres around our nation, often past suitable recycling facilities, in order to take advantage of the different levies or rules or the arbitrage that exists between the states, then we know that the patchwork of state laws is letting us down. Furthermore, state governments are not as naturally equipped to deal with aspects of international trade, including sudden external shocks when other countries change the rules on what recyclable materials they will receive.

So this bill implements our strong decision to stop the export of waste glass, mixed plastics, whole tyres and contaminated paper and cardboard from Australia to all other countries. As the Prime Minister has said, it's our waste, it's our responsibility. And it must be noted that the Prime Minister's personal interest and passion for this area of policy is another factor in our focus on recycling. I want to thank the Prime Minister for his keen interest and for making me the Commonwealth's first-ever assistant minister with responsibility for waste reduction. The Prime Minister knows that recycling is one of those challenges where the coalition's record of practical action and achieving tangible outcomes can make all the difference.

The Prime Minister, I am sure, also sees the opportunity for Australia to help our friends and neighbours in our region, particularly in the Pacific, to deal with their serious challenges when it comes to reducing waste and our shared challenge of reducing maroon debris in our oceans. Most importantly, the Prime Minister understands how important it is to the Australian people we represent that we achieve better outcomes in recycling. Australians don't want to see the contents of their recycling bins being rejected at overseas ports or hear that their mixed plastics have ended up in rivers or oceans because other countries' recycling processes couldn't adequately deal with them. Australians don't want to be shocked, as they have been too many times in recent years, to discover that the contents of their recycling bins were dumped at their local landfill right alongside their general rubbish.

So, while the federal government is not taking overall constitutional responsibility for these policy areas, we know that we can use some tools available to us at the federal level of government to move the dial. We can move the dial through our leadership and through our engagement with the community, with industry and with other levels of government. We can use the opportunities available to us to make the case for stronger action, for more consistency and harmonisation in Australia's approach and for extending the planning horizons for recycling policy in our nation. That's why it was an important foundational step last year when the environment minister and I worked together with the states and territories and local government to agree on the National Waste Policy Action Plan. It sets ambitious targets with measurable milestones for reducing waste and improving recycling over the next 10 years and it clearly identifies who is responsible for leading, funding and taking various actions.

Following the plastics summit earlier this year in Canberra, the Prime Minister at COAG secured the final agreement of all state and territory governments for the laws contained in this bill that will stop the export of the unprocessed or contaminated waste streams I listed earlier. In July, the government announced our Recycling Modernisation Fund, which, together with contributions from the states and industry, builds a $1 billion transformation of Australia's domestic waste and recycling facilities. In short, we're building, here in Australia, the recycling facilities and infrastructure we need to process our waste streams we've been sending offshore. We want to co-fund the local facilities we need in every state and territory around Australia—for instance, to sort mixed plastics, to process single-plastic polymers and to turn the recovered materials into pallets or other commodities that can be picked up and used by Aussie businesses, making the next generation of fantastic products.

So, as these laws come into force together with the record investments for recycling funded in our federal budget and together with our other recycling announcements and reforms, Australians can start to gain confidence that, when they do the right thing and put something in the recycling bin, it will actually be recycled, it will be recovered as a resource and it will support jobs, our environment and our economy.

Chapter 2 of this bill creates a framework for stopping the export of problematic, unprocessed or contaminated waste streams, including plastics, glass, paper, cardboard and tyres. The minister in her second reading speech outlined the operation of this framework. Future exports will be managed through a licensing and declaration scheme through an online portal and, as detailed by the minister, significant penalties are proposed for those who fail to comply with export requirements or who make false declarations. We also propose to publish the list of licence-holders for transparency that can help empower whistleblowing against anyone who tries to do the wrong thing.

Chapter 3 of this bill turbocharges Australia's approach to product stewardship. This is about empowering industry and businesses to take responsibility for their products to encourage better design, better manufacturing outcomes and better recovery at the end of life for products. Product stewardship is probably best known to most Australians through successful schemes like Planet Ark's scheme for printer cartridges or MobileMuster for mobile phones. In fact, Australia's very first product stewardship law, created by the Howard government 20 years ago today, was the product stewardship act for oil. That scheme has grown so successfully that it now achieves the collection and recycling of over 300 million litres of dirty, used oil each year out the back of mechanics, service stations and factories. There are now dozens of schemes like that established in Australia, achieving significant success, yet it's also widely acknowledged, including in the recently released review of the existing Product Stewardship Act 2011, that product stewardship in Australia can achieve much more with the right improvements. Taking up the recommendations of our review, the government is enacting many significant reforms to turbocharge product stewardship and set it up to achieve much, much more over the next 10 years.

While the existing act has been somewhat successful at encouraging the creation of new schemes, it would be fair to say that most existing schemes pertain to individual products or categories of product. We want to see product stewardship in Australia applied more widely and more ambitiously, particularly to resources and material streams. We want to see new schemes that can recover and recycle materials regardless of what products those materials are contained within, such as, for instance, schemes for agricultural plastics or soft-plastic packaging. To encourage more ambitious product stewardship in the years ahead, we're putting product stewardship at the heart of this new recycling act and we're expanding the existing objects of the act. Notably, we're bringing sustainable product design into the objects of the act to encourage producers to properly consider their product through the life-after-use lens, from design and materials used through to recycling, remanufacturing and disposal. We're also proposing to make it easier for industry and businesses to set up schemes and to have them accredited. These reforms are accompanied by two other very important measures. First, we've established Australia's first Product Stewardship Centre for Excellence to provide mentoring and advice from some of the best minds behind some of our existing successful schemes. Secondly, we're investing $20 million to support the creation of new schemes or the expansion of existing schemes through our National Product Stewardship Investment Fund.

The bill also proposes reforms that will boost the benefits from having an accredited scheme and the effectiveness of schemes overall. For example, the existing act has always allowed the minister to publish a list of priority areas where the government wants to see new schemes created; we're strengthening that by granting the minister the power to set a ticking stopwatch whereby, if no scheme is presented to the government by the deadline, the government makes clear it is likely then to proceed to regulation. Gone are the days when priority items like batteries sit on a priority list for years without action being taken. The free-rider problem is also often raised as being a factor that can hold back the success of many schemes under the existing act, and that's why we're adding a new dimension to the priority list process, to give the minister a regular opportunity to celebrate schemes and organisations that are doing fantastic work but also to publicly call out free riders who are not participating in an accredited scheme that's available to them. I know that industry and consumers alike will welcome this indication that the federal government wants to embed a more active role here in encouraging scheme outcomes as well as the government setting out a formal process to publicly name and shame those that are letting us all down.

Product stewardship done right has the potential to contribute significantly to Australia meeting many of our targets for 2030 under the National Waste Policy Action Plan. As a result of the reforms in this bill and the government's other initiatives and incentives, I expect to see dozens more product stewardship schemes spring into existing in Australia, I expect to see dozens more schemes become accredited and I expect to see many more schemes working closely with our government to stamp out issues like free-riding. Ultimately, I hope to see all these schemes become more successful, improving product design and increasing the recovery of products and materials that would otherwise be going to landfill. Otherwise, as the minister described in her second reading speech, our government stands poised to use the co-regulatory and mandatory powers contained in this bill whenever targeted interventions are needed.

In the next stage of the debate, I'll place some further thanks on record, because there has been extensive consultation in developing this legislative package. In summing up, I simply want to observe that to live in Australia is to live in a sanctuary. It's true in so many ways, and it's reinforced by the events of this year. Australians are fortunate to be the custodians of both a country and a continent. That provides significant benefits to us, and it also entails significant responsibilities. By introducing Australia's first ever national recycling act, the Morrison government is taking significant and practical steps to fulfil Australia's responsibilities to our environment and to our nation's future. I commend these bills to the House.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.