Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 7642:

(1) Schedule 3, Parts 1 and 2, page 16 (line 2) to page 17 (line 19), to be opposed.

I wish to speak briefly on the remaining amendments on that sheet, which I will have to move separately, given that some of them are phrased differently from the others. Just to explain, the purpose of these amendments is to oppose the abolition of a handful of advisory councils which are currently serving a very useful function of providing expert advice to the minister and to the Department of the Environment, particularly about hazardous waste issues. We are opposing the abolition of the Product Stewardship Advisory Group, the Oil Stewardship Advisory Council and the Fuel Standards Consultative Committee, all of which have successfully provided expert policy advice in highly complex areas.

We are also opposing in the later amendments, which I will move shortly, the weakening of the hazardous waste regime, which reduces transparency and reduces safeguards for the environment and for local communities. Far from perhaps a harmless-sounding red tape reduction we are seeing a reduction in environmental standards and a reduction in community participation in important decisions that have real impacts. The government appears to be blindly implementing the recommendations of their earlier commission of audit but the fact remains that these environmental programs have been an absolute excess story.

The aim of the Product Stewardship Advisory Group is to advise the minister on products for accreditation under the Product Stewardship Act. The government says, 'It's fine; we don't need this advice any more because the department can do this in House.

Our advice from the experts is that the department may well have the will, but they do not have the capacity because this government has cut their staff. They also do not currently have the expertise, which is precisely why this expert body was established in the first place.

What we are seeing here, which is perhaps not unusual from this government, is a stepping away from evidence based, science based decision making. Instead, the government intends to put more pressure on an already under-resourced department which, in these particular examples, lacks the skills and the resources to properly fill that gap.

Moving now to the Oil Stewardship Advisory Council: similarly, it is an advisory body which advises the minister on matters related to the Product Stewardship for Oil Program. This encompasses things like product stewardship, recovery, recycling, benefits, the state of oil production and oil recycling industries. Having this advisory body has been a real success story. The advice from experts is that there are two meetings per year with some very fair sitting fees per member and that the advisory body provides a very useful function to the government of the day.

The Total Environment Centre and the National Toxics Network have opposed the abolition of these bodies. The Total Environment Centre said:

By abolishing the Product Stewardship Advisory Group (PSAG) which has performed an essential function of investigating and recommending products like waste batteries and paint to be subject to recycling instead of being dumped into landfill …

The federal government is effectively taking other harmful wastes off the national recycling agenda.

It argues the department can still do this on an ‘as needs’ basis but the department does not initiate such action and it is under a clear government direction to resist new regulation.

Clearly, industry and the department are being sent a message here: 'Just keep on approving things; we do not value expert advice; let's just tick and flick.'

The fuel quality standards amendments are along a similar vein. They seek to abolish the Fuel Standards Consultative Committee. They insert a new consultation process which applies to the grant process and the variation of approvals process for fuel standards. The government says that the department will carry out that advisory role; but, again, this is why we have expert advisory bodies: when you have slashed the department down to so few staff, and particularly when the staff who remain do not have the relevant expertise in these areas, that is precisely when you need expert advice.

I will flag that there are some parts of this bill that we do not oppose in schedule 3, and some of those are genuinely duplicative. We have structured our amendments in a way that we think is fair and that does not object to the abolition of particular parts which genuinely seem to be superfluous and do not have an actual on-ground impact. We are taking a reasonable approach here, but you simply cannot abolish three expert environment advisory bodies and somehow charge the department with those new responsibilities when you have sacked hundreds of those people who are already under pressure from an existing workload.

I will finish up by speaking to the hazardous waste amendments. The government is planning on gutting the hazardous waste regulation regime. They, of course, describe it as streamlining and simplifying. In fact, it is reducing the ability of local communities to keep track of what is going on and to be able to protect their health and their local environment. In particular, the government are seeking to remove the requirement for the particulars of an export application to be specified in regs before a decision is made to grant an export permit. They are also seeking to reduce the matters that must be included in import and export permits. They are removing the publication requirements of our permits from the Gazette and they are removing the requirement for a transit permit as well as introducing a new tenure limit on the Hazardous Waste Technical Group, which is somewhat perplexing and raises suspicions as to whether that is designed to hasten a particular person out. We are opposing the repeal of these hazardous waste provisions because this government seems intent on reducing environmental protection, as it is intent on reducing staff at the environment departments who are under an incredible amount of pressure to do valuable work. We need these expert advisory committees. They are performing a valuable role and assisting government in making positive decisions—if, of course, that advice is followed. We will, therefore, be opposing their abolition.

The CHAIRMAN: The question is that: schedule 3, parts 1 and 2, page 16 (line 2) to page 17 (line 19) stand as printed

Question negatived.

I move amendment (2) on sheet 7642:

(2) Schedule 3, items 9 to 23, page 18 (line 3) to page 20 (line 10), to be opposed.

The CHAIRMAN: The question is that: schedule 3, items 9 to 23, page 18 (line 3) to page 20 (line 10) stand as printed.

Question negatived.

I move amendment (3) on sheet 7642:

(3) Schedule 3, item 25, page 20 (line 14) to page 21 (line 2), omit subitems (1) to (4).

Question agreed to.

I move amendment (4) on sheet 7642:

(4) Schedule 3, item 25, page 21 (lines 6 to 22), omit subitems (6) and (7).

Question agreed to.

I move amendment (5) on sheet 7642:

(5) Schedule 3, items 28 to 37, page 22 (line 12) to page 24 (line 30), to be opposed.

The CHAIRMAN: The question is that Schedule 3, items 28 to 37, page 22 (line 12) to page 24 (line 30) stand as printed.

Question negatived.

I move amendment (6) on sheet 7642:

(6) Schedule 3, item 41, page 25 (lines 6 to 24), omit subitems (1) to (5).

Question agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN: The question now is that the bill, as amended, by agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.