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

I move:

(1) Clause 67, page 67 (after line 21), after subclause (1), insert:

  First priority list must cover packaging

  (1A) The Minister’s priority list that the Minister is required to publish under subsection (1) before the end of the financial year ending on 30 June 2021 must include packaging in the list of products referred to in paragraph (1)(a), and set out information as required under paragraphs (1)(b), (c) and (d) in relation to packaging.

  (1B) To avoid doubt, subsection (1A) does not prevent the Minister’s priority list from including products other than packaging.

  (1C) For the purposes of this section, packaging includes:

     (a) a container, wrapper, confining band or other thing in which a good is packed, or 2 or more goods are packed; and

     (b) anything around which a good is wound or wrapped, or 2 or more goods are wound or wrapped; and

     (c) a container that is designed to contain a liquid for human consumption (whether for the purposes of transporting or storing the liquid, or for the use or consumption of the liquid).

This amendment picks up the broad question of whether the newly created minister's priority list will be effective in dealing with some of the most harmful and most disappointingly unrecycled types of waste. There's plenty of evidence that a listings mechanism, which encourages a voluntary response from an industry or group of producers, has been pretty ineffective to date. Packaging is a very good example of that. That's why this amendment proposes to put packaging back on the minister's priority list from the outset.

While the Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation is a worthy initiative, and there's no doubt its targets are worthy, unfortunately so far APCO has not been a vehicle for significant change. So far we're not on track to achieve the key APCO targets which are, in effect, the agreed targets under the National Waste Policy Action Plan. These include the elimination of harmful and unnecessary plastic products by 2025. They include achieving 50 per cent of recycled content in packaging and a 70 per cent rate of plastic recycling all by 2025. At the moment, the rate of plastic recycling for packaging is only 16 per cent. In a few months, it will be 2021, and 2025 is not far away. We should stop kidding ourselves that we are making great progress towards the 2025 targets—we're not.

APCO is effectively a voluntary scheme. To the extent that it does involve some obligations, those are supposed to be enforced through the National Environment Protection Measures, the NEPM, but, to a large extent, that hasn't happened. As I observed in the second reading debate, it's a shame that the NEPM review couldn't be landed in advance of the reforms we're considering.

I accept there has been some positive movement in the last year or so. APCO has worked hard to increase its membership and the government has just announced that APCO will move towards accreditation of the existing voluntary scheme, but this is very belated progress, and it remains to be seen what it will achieve. For all of those reasons, this amendment would add packaging to the minister's priority list from the outset. If the new priority list will be an effective and genuine means of achieving change, as the assistant minister has just described, then why not get started on one of the biggest problem categories right now?

The minister will still get to set the required actions and the timetable, as has been described. If the government is confident about the positive change that's in prospect through these mechanisms, then why hesitate to add packaging to the list? Australia is a sanctuary. Our environment is precious. When it comes to waste and recycling, we haven't done tremendously well. We're not doing well. There's a huge amount of plastic in our oceans, washing up on our coast, and a lot of it is from us. We do very poorly at 12 per cent of plastic recycling across the board and 16 per cent of plastic packaging. That's not good enough. We don't really have a lot of reason to be sanguine or to be optimistic about it.

Considering how poorly Australia does when it comes to plastic pollution, considering how little progress we've made and considering how far off track we are with respect to the National Waste Policy Action Plan's plastic and packaging targets, there really is no good reason or excuse to avoid adding packaging to the minister's priority list right now, which is precisely what this amendment seeks to do. On that basis, I commend the amendment to the House.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The amendment moved by the member for Fremantle is welcome, and I support it. Item 1 will insert new requirements on the minister to publish packaging products on the minister's priority list. Currently, packaging is dealt with under the National Environment Protection (Used Packaging Materials) Measure established by the National Environmental Protection Council in 1997 and also under the Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation, or APCO, co-regulatory arrangements, which in 2018 listed a number of targets for packaging.

Packaging, especially plastics, is one of the leading contributors to waste in our oceans and elsewhere in the environment. Community alarm at the deterioration in the health of our oceans and the extent of the issue means we must escalate our ambition in dealing with the problem. This amendment will ensure that packaging is a matter of priority for the government and ensure that attention is on the steps industry and APCO must take to deal with this issue.

This bill is an opportunity to make headway on a pervasive and complex problem, and we must ensure we get it right. This amendment will help in doing that.

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

I thank the members opposite for their contributions. As flagged, I will shortly be moving some government amendments that may address some of the issues that have been raised by the opposition and others. Regarding packaging and the proposal to add packaging to the minister's priority list, the government does not support those amendments. I certainly do understand the desire to see fast progress on packaging—we share that desire, and I'll return in a moment to what the government is doing—but it's worth really focusing on what this particular proposal means.

Adding packaging to the minister's priority list does not make logical sense and leads to a somewhat redundant outcome. Let's be clear why that is. The minister's priority list is a mechanism to do one of two things. It's either a government encouraging industry and experts to create and bring forward a new scheme or it's a government flagging that regulation is likely to be considered in the future. Right now for packaging there is already a scheme and there's already regulation. In fact, there's more than just regulation. There are laws and, as has been referred to by other speakers, the National Environment Protection (Used Packaging Materials) Measure 2011 and its state counterparts. If we think through for a moment how it would ultimately play out if this proposal were adopted, the minister would put packaging on the minister's priority list and then after, say, 12 months the minister would have to come out and ask, 'Has anyone come to the scheme?' Of course, everybody would say, 'No, because there is already one,' at which point the minister might say, 'What if I regulate? That's the other option available to me,' and everybody would have to reply, 'There are already regulations and laws, and they existed before you put this on the priority list.' So you can understand, I think, by going through that process, why I see that this would be a potentially redundant outcome if the parliament were to go ahead and do what is proposed. In my view, it's the wrong lever to pull. The real action, I suppose, is already further progressed, much further along than a listing might achieve.

So I say respectfully to members opposite that there are more-effective actions that we can take, and that our government is acting in the following three ways. First, the government has officially endorsed the strong and ambitious 2025 packaging targets of the Australian Packaging Covenant, including for all packaging in Australia to be recyclable, reusable or compostable, and to achieve 70 per cent recycling rates for packaging by 2025. So we're backing Australia's packaging targets and we're helping the progress being made there, through our policies and our reforms and by way of our government funding. We've negotiated to increase some of the packaging targets and we've enshrined the targets at the highest levels of the National Waste Policy Action Plan, agreed to by all governments in Australia. Second, in relation to the packaging scheme we already have in Australia, the bills we're debating now will help that scheme to be a better and stronger scheme. The Packaging Covenant have publicly said that, as soon as parliament passes these laws, they'll take advantage of our reforms, they'll seek accreditation of the scheme under our new laws and they'll seek to utilise some new powers and mechanisms contained in our reforms, such as the ability to work closely with the minister to address issues like free riding.

Third, in relation to the packaging laws we already have in Australia, which have been referenced, if one believes that those laws are in need of improvement—specifically I call out the potential issue of enforcement given that no Australian state has taken enforcement action under their laws in recent years—then obviously the best course of action is to directly amend those laws. I note that our government is reviewing the NEPM for used packaging right now. That's underway.

There are other government actions which will significantly improve the recycling of packaging. Our government is working on finalising a national plastics plan right now, and it's funding the creation of a new product stewardship scheme. The government is working tirelessly on our nation's priorities for waste reduction across all waste streams, including packaging. Those actions I just outlined, in my view, are the more effective ways to tackle packaging issues, and that's what our government is focused on.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment moved by the member for Fremantle be disagreed to.

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

I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and ask leave of the House to move government amendments (1) to (16), as circulated, together.

Leave not granted.

I move government amendment (1):

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (cell at table item 1, column 2), omit the cell, substitute:

The day after this Act

receives the Royal

Assent.

The government has developed these amendments in consultation with the opposition and some crossbench members. I'd like to place on the record my thanks to some people and organisations that have assisted in this task of getting Australia its first national recycling act. Thank you again to all honourable members who've contributed to this debate. In particular I want to place on record my thanks to the shadow assistant minister for the environment for his valuable engagement and input. I know from the discussions we had together on the drafting of these bills and on broader policy aims that the shadow minister is as driven and passionate about improving recycling as I am. Now, more than ever, Australian want to see their representatives working across federal-state divisions and across all parties in the national interest. The legislation before the House today broadly reflects that spirit of collegiality.

These bills have also benefited significantly from the insights of key industry groups led by Pete Shmigel and the Australian Council of Recycling, Rose Reid and the National Waste and Recycling Industry Council, and Gayle Sloan and the Waste Management and Resource Recovery Association of Australia. I thank everyone I have engaged with—here are so many, from the recycling sector, environmental groups, industry up and down supply chains, experts and consumers—for all of their valuable time and insights, for their assistance in drafting these laws and for their broad, wide-spread support of these bills.

I also want to give a special shout-out after speaking last week with Pip Kiernan. She told many how her father, Ian Kiernan, the founder of Clean Up Australia had talked for almost thirty years about the potential power of product stewardship in recognising that there's value inherent in all the things that some people sometimes treat like rubbish. I did have the pleasure of meeting Ian a few times before he sadly passed, and I feel honoured to think how he'd be pleased to see Australia taking these steps and, in particular, the reforms to turbo-charge product stewardship.

The proposed amendments to the Recycling And Waste Reduction Bill 2020 will make a number of changes, including to change the time frame for a review of the act from 10 years to 5 years and to change the commencement date to the day after royal assent. The proposed amendments will also strengthen the objects of the act and will replace, for instance, in the objects of the act the phrase 'promote the circular economy' to 'develop the circular economy'. We'll insert the word 'remanufacture' to clarify that the remanufacturing of products is so important for a circular economy, and we'll change the meaning of the list of responsible persons for products to clarify that manufacturers, importers, distributors, designers and other persons are taking responsibility for their products.

The proposed amendments that we are moving today will also increase transparency around the granting of export licences and exemptions and will require quarterly reporting of information covering exemptions and export licences that have been applied for and granted. This information is also required to be published on the website of the Department of the Agriculture, Water and the Environment. The proposed amendments will also improve the minister's priority list process in two ways. Firstly, they will ensure that when something sits on the list and the time frame for recommended action passes, the minister will be required to either make a further recommendation or pursue regulatory options available under the laws, which might include, for instance, proceeding to develop a co-regulatory product stewardship scheme or a mandatory approach.

In concluding, I'd like to again thank the Minister for the Environment for her support and everyone in our teams in the department and here for their hard work in getting these recycling laws to this point. I commend government amendment (1) to the House.

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

Labor supports amendment (1). We've been glad to work with the government, particularly with the assistant minister and his staff, in considering a range of changes, some of which were put forward by Labor and some of which have been raised by the waste, recycling and resource management sector. Amendment (1) makes a change to the package of bills that essentially adjusts the timing of the bill, in terms of when it becomes operational. It's something that the assistant minister explained in our engagement with him about it. It seems to be an understandable change that means that the package comes into effect in a more timely way, and Labor will support amendment (1).

Lucy Wicks (Robertson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that amendment (1) be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

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

I move government amendment (2):

Clause 3, page 2 (line 23), omit "promote", substitute "develop".

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Minister for the Environment and the Assistant Minister for Waste Reduction and Environmental Management for moving these amendments and taking the time to meet with me. I had originally intended to move my own amendments but many of these are sufficiently resolved by the government amendments. In relation to amendment No. 2 it will now read 'to develop' a circular economy instead of just 'to promote', which is consistent with my own concerns and those of the industry, that we get on with the job of developing a circular economy. We must ensure that we tackle this issue head-on and are audacious with our goals. Just like our peers in the European Union, we can and should develop a circular economy in Australia.

Andrew Leigh (Fenner, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's extraordinary that the minister gave no reasons why the House should support this amendment. The minister has moved an amendment but said nothing in favour of it. The House declined to give leave for the amendments to be considered together. They need to be considered separately. We're taking that attitude because the government has consistently moved the Leader of the Opposition be no longer heard, and so on that basis it's up to the government to actually argue for things they believe in, rather than hope that the parliament will assent to amendments which simply have no government backing.

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

For the point of clarification and for the record these are amendments that were negotiated with the opposition, and some of them are based on proposals that were made by the opposition. They're in terms that were put by the opposition in their first draft amendment. I spoke to each of the amendments in detail on moving the first amendment and I think that they speak for themselves.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's important for the Australian people that this parliament is not simply deals or agreements, or the fact that the opposition has supported something doesn't in any way take away the obligation on a minister in this place to explain, and put on the Hansard, the reasons why an amendment should be supported. The fact that a speech was given on amendment No. 1 gives us no reason whatsoever to understand what the particular reasons are for amendment No. 2. My concern is that we may have a situation here right now where the minister at the table doesn't in fact know what amendment No. 2 does. It would be an outrageous slur if it were true. If you want cooperation in this place do your job and stand up and explain, for each of the amendments, why they should be supported. That's all you have to do. It is, in fact, your job to do them one at a time. Don't come in here expecting cooperation when the government offers none.

Lucy Wicks (Robertson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Manager of Opposition Business and I just remind the Manager of Opposition Business to address his remarks through the chair.

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

I spoke to each of these amendments very specifically as I moved the first amendment, so the House does have it on record what each of these amendments pertain to. I understand that the Manager of Opposition Business wasn't in the chamber when I did it. For the sake of clarity, amendment No. 2 is to change clause 3. We are speaking about the objects of the act—to replace the word 'promote' with the word 'develop' in relation to a circular economy.

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

Labor will be supporting amendment No. 2. It changes, in the objects of the bill, the word 'promote' to the word 'develop', as the assistant minister explained. This is a change that was raised during the consultation phase on the bill by the sector. It's about ensuring that, with this package, rather than it being the case that the objects are promoted or advanced in that encouraging or promotional way, some of the changes are actually developed, and that's why the sector felt that this was a meaningful change, from 'promote' to 'develop'. We accept that. Clearly, the government does too. And, on that basis, we will support the amendment.

Lucy Wicks (Robertson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that amendment (2) be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

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

I move government amendment (3):

Clause 3, page 3 (line 6), after "reuse,", insert "remanufacture,".

It pertains to clause 3. Again, it's in relation to the objects of the act and it involves, after the word 'reuse' inserting the word 'remanufacture', given it's of critical importance to a circular economy.

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

Labor will support this amendment, amendment (3). It's a pretty critical word-change, I suppose, from 'reuse' to 'remanufacture'. Just picking up on what the assistant minister said, if you're genuine about creating a circular economy, you've got to take things full circle. You've got to have materials and products that come all the way back around into new products, and reuse is part of the waste hierarchy but it's not really the key part as far as that circularity is concerned. 'Remanufacture' is a much better word because it picks up the idea that you're capturing, you're recovering, materials in a product that is no longer of use and has been disposed of, and, through some reprocessing and other process, you're turning it into something else. So the sector again raised that 'remanufacture' was a better term. The government has heard that and made this amendment, which we will support.

Lucy Wicks (Robertson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment, (3), be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

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

I move government amendment (4):

Clause 3, page 3 (lines 9 to 11), omit "those responsible for using, designing, manufacturing and distributing products to take responsibility for those products", substitute "manufacturers, importers, distributors, designers and other persons to take responsibility for products".

Again, it is a change to the objects of the act in clause 3. This clarifies those who are responsible for products, particularly for the purposes of product stewardship, and it includes the phrase 'manufacturers, importers, distributors, designers and other persons to take responsibility for products'.

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

I'll take the hint from the minister for environment and I'll try and vary what I have to say in support of this amendment. The key thing here is the omission in the amended version of those responsible for using. We do see too much emphasis put on consumers and members of the community when it comes to improving waste outcomes. It really shouldn't be up to ordinary members of the community. Their desire to see much better outcomes when it comes to waste recycling and resource management is clear. They're actually doing most of the heavy lifting. The change that needs to be made is right at the other end of the spectrum—it's actually producers that need to take some responsibility for their products. There are many producers that take literally zero responsibility for the waste and disposal outcomes. There are some producers that take a little bit. But the reality is: producers need to take the large share of responsibility for what is going to happen to their products in the end—the circularity of those products—and this change reflects that.

Lucy Wicks (Robertson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that amendment (4) be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

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

I move government amendment (5):

Clause 16, page 16 (lines 6 to 9), omit the paragraph beginning "The Minister must publish', substitute:

The Minister must publish certain information on the Department's website about exemptions and export licences that have been granted, including the name of the holder of an exemption or licence, and the kind of regulated waste material that is covered by an exemption or licence. The Minister must also prepare a quarterly report containing this information.

The amendment clarifies how publishing of certain information is to take place, including onto the department's website, and it specifies that the minister must also prepare a quarterly report containing this information.

Lucy Wicks (Robertson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment, (5), be agreed to.

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

Labor will be supporting this amendment. It picks up one of a number of improvements in this space, and there are some amendments to come that achieve a similar end—and that's essentially to ensure that, where there is an exemption to the new export licence framework, there's proper transparency about why that exemption is being granted. The assistant minister, in the engagement we had with the government, made some points about striking the balance between, on the one hand, transparency and, on the other hand, some of the unintended consequences that might occur if information about exemptions was made available too widely or in an unhelpful way. I think, in the end, the changes that have been made do strike that balance. It is important that, where there are exemptions to this new export ban framework, people in the community and people in the industry can see why they have been granted, and that's why we will be supporting this amendment.

Question agreed to.

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

I move government amendment (6):

(6) Clause 65, page 64 (lines 11 to 25), omit the clause, substitute:

65 Publishing information about exemptions and export licences

(1) The Minister must publish on the Department's website the following information in relation to each exemption and export licence granted by the Minister under Part 3 or 4:

(a) the name of the holder of the exemption or licence;

(b) each kind of regulated waste material covered by the exemption or licence;

(c) the day the exemption or licence takes effect;

(d) whether the exemption or licence remains in force for a specified period or until a specified event occurs.

(2) However, the Minister must not publish any information under subsection (1) if the Minister is satisfied that:

(a) there is a risk that publishing the information might substantially prejudice the commercial interests of a person; and

(b) publishing the information is not in the public interest.

This amendment will substitute a new clause 65 that requires the minister to publish on the department's website certain information. The original draft of the bill just pertained to export licences, and this makes the change to ensure that exemptions are also published.

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

As I said in relation to the previous amendment, this amendment continues to improve the way that exemptions and disclosures under the bill are made. I agree with the explanation given by the assistant minister, and we support this amendment.

Question agreed to.

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

I move government amendment (7):

(7) Page 64 (after line 25), at the end of Chapter 2, add:

65A Quarterly reports

(1) The Minister must prepare a report in relation to exemptions and export licences for each quarter of each financial year.

(2) The Minister must do so as soon as practicable after the end of each quarter of each financial year.

(3) The report must contain:

(a) the information set out in paragraphs 65(1) (a) to (d) for each exemption or export licence granted during that quarter; and

(b) the information (if any) prescribed by the rules.

(4) However, the Minister must not publish any information in the report if the Minister must not publish that information under section 65.

Note: In some circumstances, the Minister must not publish information about exemptions or export licences on the Department's website (see subsection 65(2)).

(5) The Minister must publish a copy of the report on the Department's website.

This inserts a new clause 65A, which clarifies some of the requirements around the issuing of quarterly reports. For instance, subsection (2) will require the minister to prepare the quarterly report as soon as practicable after the end of each quarter of each financial year; subsection (4) will clarify that the minister must not publish any information in the report if the minister is not to publish it under clause 65 and so on.

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

We welcome government amendment (7) and we'll support it. It is important that this kind of reporting happens in a timely way. There have been examples in other areas of government where discretion in terms of the timing of reporting has allowed reports to come in late, to be delayed, or, in some cases, issued at times that might seem, to the casual observer, to be designed to ensure they don't get that much attention. I think the degree of certainty in this amendment is an improvement on the bill as it was first put forward, and we'll support the amendment.

Question agreed to.

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

I move government amendment (8):

(8) Clause 67, page 67 (lines 23 to 33), omit subclause (2), substitute:

(2) In preparing a Minister's priority list, the Minister must consult with:

(a) each State and Territory; and

(b) relevant Centres of Excellence (if any).

This amendment relates to the preparation of the minister's priority list and makes it clear that consultation must occur with each state and territory and the federal government's new centre of excellence for product stewardship.

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

This is a significant change and I am grateful to the assistant minister and his staff for the way they engaged on this particular change. Amendment (8) and amendment (9) are related, and they go to the issue of how the minister will consult in preparing the minister's priority list, which is a significant change the government is making with respect to the product stewardship arrangements. While we don't think those changes, on the whole, go far enough or really grasp the nettle, it is important that the minister's priority list arrangements are as strong as they can be, and on that basis we support it. Whereas the draft form of the bill listed a whole series of bodies and sources of advice that the minister may engage with in reaching a decision about what goes on the minister's priority list and what actions and what timetable should apply, we felt that, for the minister's priority list to be in the best form and have the most rigour and effectiveness as one could expect, the minister's consultation with at least each state and territory and any relevant centres of excellence should be mandatory. That is what this change achieves, by shifting from 'may consult' to 'must consult' with respect to each state and territory and any relevant centres of excellence. The reference to any 'relevant centres of excellence' obviously looks to the fact that the government intends to establish the Product Stewardship Centre of Excellence, and there has been some information in the public domain about how that will be constituted.

To some degree, you have to see the Product Stewardship Centre of Excellence in the context of what preceded it under Labor's form of the product stewardship arrangements, which was the Product Stewardship Advisory Group, an independent statutory body that existed to give advice to the minister and provide that kind of expertise. We don't feel the Product Stewardship Centre of Excellence is being established with quite the same standing and independence as the PSAG, but it is good to see this body being formed, and it's absolutely appropriate that the minister, in preparing the priority list, must consult with the new Product Stewardship Centre of Excellence, and on that basis we support the amendment.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Under amendment (8) the minister will now be required to consult with each state and territory, which is an essential element which I certainly support. It is essential to ensure that Commonwealth actions are coordinated and that a strategic approach is brought to waste and recycling. Amendment (8) puts a clear requirement on the minister: they must consult with each state and territory and the relevant centre of excellence.

Evidence received by the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee from various proponents stressed that consultation must be conducted prior to the development of the ministerial priority list. This amendments clearly addresses that. I had originally proposed to move amendments that would establish a product stewardship advisory committee similar to what had previously existed. The committee has been superseded by the government's proposed centre of excellence, which would assume many of the same roles that I had proposed and more. I think it would possibly have been better for continuity and certainty if this body had been established in statute and the goings-on scrutinised by the parliament. To that end, I seek some clarification from the assistant minister or the Minister for the Environment in relation to the centre of excellence. Is it possible to confirm that the proposed centre for excellence will in fact operate independently? I understand it has seed funding for government. Will regular monitoring by the Auditor-General or the minister occur to ensure that it is effective in its duties in this very important area?

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

I thank the member for her contribution, her question and her interest in this topic. As has recently been announced, the Morrison government has provided $1 million of seed funding to establish Australia's first product stewardship centre of excellence. I can confirm that it will play an independent advisory role in relation to the minister's priority list and it will also play an mentoring and development role. I am sure the member will be pleased to learn that the centre will be run by the University of Technology Sydney's Institute for Sustainable Futures, and it includes in the team some of Australia's most experienced and engaged experts in product stewardship, including some of the best brains behind some of the most successful schemes that we have here in Australia. We're talking about experts like Rose Read, who helped develop and set up MobileMuster, and John Gertsakis, who's the co-founder of the Ewaste Watch Institute. They bring a wealth of experience to the table.

I note the member's interest in ongoing scrutiny of the work of the centre of excellence. There is a strong agreement—a memorandum of understanding, and an agreement between the department and the centre of excellence. There will be ongoing feedback between the centre of excellence and the minister in that annual product-listing process. And I can assure the member that any future minister operating in this space will absolutely have their door knocked down by people from industry, from businesses, from experts, from people who want to set up better or new product recycling schemes around Australia, and it will become incredibly apparent very early on to all of us if a centre of excellence isn't providing the support, the advice and the mentoring that they would be expecting.

Lucy Wicks (Robertson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that amendment (8) be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

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

I move government amendment (9):

(9)   Clause 67, page 67 (after line 33), after subclause (2), insert:

  (2A)   In preparing a Minister’s priority list, the Minister may consult with one or more of the following:

  (a)   persons or organisations involved in, or advocating for, best practice in relation to the reuse, remanufacture, recycling and recovery of products, waste from products and waste material;

  (b)   industry groups;

  (c)   consumer groups;

  (d)   environmental groups;

  (e)   local government authorities;

  (f)   any other person or organisation the Minister considers should be consulted.

Government amendment (9) dovetails neatly into the previous amendment that we spoke about, which talked about two places where the minister must consult in the preparation of the priority list. This amendment pertains to a list of entities that the minister may consult in creating that minister's listing process. It includes organisations or persons involved in, or advocating for, best practice in relation to product stewardship—industry groups, consumer groups, environmental groups, local governments and so on.

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

As the assistant minister has described, this really just makes up the second part of the consultation clause, clause 67, and is distinguished from the first part, which will be dealt with in amendment (8), because this is a list of categories of groups and persons that the minister 'may' consult with, as opposed to 'must' consult with. On that basis, we support the amendment.

Question agreed to.

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

I move government amendment (10):

(10)    Clause 67, page 68 (after line 1), after subclause (2), insert:

  (2B)   In preparing a list of products for inclusion in a Minister’s priority list, the Minister must have regard to any relevant national waste policies or plans.

This amendment states that, when preparing the minister's priority list, the minister must have regard to any relevant national waste policies or plans, such as the National Waste Policy Action Plan that I spoke about in my second-reading speech.

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

This is a particularly important amendment because, if the minister's priority list is to work in the way that the government has explained, there has to be a tight relationship between that list, as it's updated on an annual basis, and the National Waste Policy Action Plan. As I said earlier, the APCO targets in relation to packaging are incorporated within the National Waste Policy Action Plan. They are not just worthy targets, they are necessary targets. As I said before, the elimination of harmful and unnecessary plastic by 2025 is going to happen very soon. The minister's priorities will not be effective if, at various points along the way, the government and the minister aren't realistic about the progress that is being made. We are at 16 per cent of plastic packaging recycling now. If in 18 months we have crept our way up to 25 or 30 per cent, it's very hard to see how we can get to 70 per cent by 2025. At the moment, without considerable action that varies a great deal from what industry and producer groups have done today, it's pretty hard to make a case for saying that we will eliminate harmful and single-use plastics by 2025. It's really important that, as we watch those targets and their time lines, the minister's priority list picks up quite sharply and urgently the need to hasten things along if the 'tap the watch and waggle the finger' aspect of the changes that are being made doesn't produce the results lickety-split.

Question agreed to.

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

I move government amendment (11):

(11)    Clause 67, page 68 (line 12), omit “subsection (2)”, substitute “subsections (2) and (2A)”.

This amendment is a consequential amendment to amendment (9). It amends clause 67 to reference our new subclauses that will have been asserted by way of amendment (9). The effect, basically, is that, when preparing the minister's priority list each financial year, the minister is able to have regard to the information obtained in their consultations with any of that list of people.

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

The assistant minister has explained this amendment about as well as it can be explained. It's ultra-technical and consequential, but necessary, and we will support it.

Question agreed to.

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

I move government amendment No. (12):

(12) Clause 67, page 68 (line 31), omit "may", substitute "if the recommended action has not been taken in relation to the product within the recommended time—must".

This amendment relates to what happens when an item that's been on the minister's priority list times out, so to speak. We're essentially replacing the word 'may' with the word 'must' to strengthen the government's posture towards taking action at that point in time.

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

This is another amendment that I'm grateful to the assistant minister and the government for giving their consideration to. It is an important change, again. There's a big difference. It may not seem like a big difference out there in the world when you change the word 'may' to 'must', but there is a big difference. Certainly in this case we had a priority list in the past that hadn't been tremendously effective. Now we have a priority list that adds specific actions and a specific timetable, but, obviously, if the stopwatch gets to the end, as the assistant minister has described, and the minister has the wriggle room to embark on some further delay or some further consideration or to um and ah one way or another, the stopwatch doesn't really generate all that much. In this case, the addition of the word 'must' does at least mean that, where the minister has put on the minister's priority list a recommended action and got that stopwatch ticking away, at the end of it, the minister is required to do something. I think that, without that, the minister's priority list wouldn't be a very effective mechanism. That's why we asked for this amendment, and we certainly support it.

Question agreed to.

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

I move government amendment No. (13):

(13) Clause 92, page 96 (line 25), after "reuse,", insert "remanufacture,".

Similar to a previous amendment, this relates to the objects of the act. After the word 'reuse' in clause 92, we propose inserting the word 'remanufacture'.

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

I will cast my mind forward because, in the case of amendments (13), (14) and (15), the word 'reuse' is being changed to 'remanufacture'. I mentioned in relation to one of the earlier amendments that it's a change that the waste recycling and resource management sector identified as better describing what we need to see and better reflecting what needs to happen if we're to move towards a circular economy. On that basis, I support amendment (13).

Question agreed to.

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

I move government amendment No. (14):

(14) Clause 144, page 147 (line 16), after "reuse,", insert "remanufacture,".

Very similar to the previous amendment, it's a consequential amendment after a similar wording change to the objects of the act to insert into clause 144 after the word 'reuse' the word 'remanufacture'.

Question agreed to.

I move government amendment No. (15):

(15) Clause 144, page 147 (line 26), after "reuse,", insert "remanufacture,".

Similar to the last two amendments, this is a consequential amendment following a similar wording change in the objects of the act. In clause 144 we propose to insert after the word 'reuse' the word 'remanufacture'.

Question agreed to.

I move government amendment No. (16):

(16) Clause 185, page 181 (line 15), omit "be undertaken no later than 10 years", substitute "begin no later than 5 years".

This amendment relates to the review of the act enshrined in the legislation or in the proposed bill. We are changing the words so that a review which would have otherwise been undertaken no later than 10 years after the commencement of the act will take place no later than five years after the commencement of the act.

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

Again this is an important change. Under the Product Stewardship Act as it was, there was a requirement for a five-year statutory review, and in the first form of the bill it was suggested that that be moved to 10 years. We think, and I believe the sector is strongly of the view, that there should be a five-year review. The assistant minister made the point that as the phased introduction of the different material bands comes into place there'll be some that have only really been introduced close to the end of the five-year period. In reality, it's not the export ban part of this bill that is the big issue; that's pretty straightforward and most people agree with it. It's the product stewardship changes—we say relatively minor product stewardship changes—that are really the issue, and it's utterly appropriate that they be looked at sooner rather than later.

It does have to be noted that the review of the Product Stewardship Act as it was commenced in 2011, was due in 2016, and occurred and was delivered woefully late. That's another reason why we don't really want to see a five-year review changed to a 10-year review. Obviously, this is the last amendment, and we believe that this amendment, along with the previous 15, makes some meaningful changes to the package.

I've said a number of times, and I'll repeat it, that I'm grateful to the assistant minister and his office for the way they've engaged with us. It was courteous and professional all the way along. We didn't agree about a number of things but it was good that we could agree about some of them, and I do think they will result in a better piece of law. The changes in relation to the minister's priority list are the particularly important ones. We believe that, considering where Australia has got to, it's past time for us to do a lot more on producer responsibility. It's past time for us to realise that voluntary arrangements aren't effective and that co-regulatory arrangements and mandatory arrangements are really the way to go. The government are essentially giving voluntary arrangements one more go, one more opportunity to prove themselves, and that's their call. There hasn't been a lot to give us encouragement on that front. I don't think anyone could make that argument. Whether the minister's priority list is just that little bit of extra encouragement that the producer world and the industry need remains to be seen. That will be in the hands of the government. I'm glad that the assistant minister and the minister, in speaking about these amendments and the bills to which the amendments are being made, have made it clear that they intend to push on in an area where there has been much too much delay for too long.

So I welcome this amendment. Labor supports it. I hope that by the time we get to the statutory five-year review the things that we need to see have either occurred or are very close to occurring. We will be in 2025 by then. The targets that have been set are ambitious ones. We're a long way from achieving them. The assistant minister did say informally that if they weren't to occur I could shout across the chamber at him. I wouldn't do that. I know he's committed to seeing this change occur. I know that he feels it. He's wearing his tie with fish on it. I know he understands how important it is to get better waste outcomes for our environment as a whole, particularly for our marine environment. He gets that. People around Australia get that. We wish these changes well. We don't think they're as strong as they could be, but the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, we finally get to the final amendment. If only we could have this process done more collaboratively more often! I again would like to thank the Minister for the Environment and the Assistant Minister for Waste Reduction and Environmental Management for moving these amendments and taking the time to meet with me. Item (16) will ensure that reviews on the performance of the act are held every five years. I originally sought to propose the same and I certainly welcome this amendment. It is important, because this area is innovating rapidly. There are changes happening very frequently, and legislation must be continually improved upon to ensure it keeps pace with developments. This issue is really important to so many in our community. This amendment will ensure that the legislation is reviewed at regular intervals of no less than five years and ensure it keeps pace with those developments. It will ensure there are no delays to its review, which is what we unfortunately did see under the Product Stewardship Act. Again I repeat my thanks to the minister and the assistant minister, and I look forward to seeing the progress we so desperately need in this area.

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agree to.