Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I'll talk this out until the dinner break, and perhaps over that time you could check on the status of the Product Stewardship Act. My understanding was that a review of that act was part of an omnibus repeal bill in 2014, but there's a compulsory five-year review. The proposed abolition of this legislation that we're reviewing tonight was announced and amending legislation was introduced in 2014, but I'm very interested in the Product Stewardship Act, which is currently under review pursuant to provisions of that act that require the government to initiate an independent review of its operations every five years. My footnote for that was the Product Stewardship Act, section 109. There's a statement from Minister Frydenberg under in the 'Review of Product Stewardship Act 2011' media release from March 2017, and the Department of the Environment and Energy product stewardship website's also got a statement. I want to confirm that that is the case—that the whole act is under review—and when that might finish.

That's really important here. Not only are we potentially putting the cart before the horse in winding up what we're doing with this legislation tonight, but the expertise that was critical to at least one product stewardship scheme being successful—I have doubts as to whether anything else was achieved because of a total lack of commitment and leadership from the Liberal government since they came to power in 2013 in fixing the waste crisis that we have in this country.

I understand that the e-waste product stewardship scheme was almost too successful. They had such a good result that they almost had too much to deal with. But the Tyre Product Stewardship Scheme, a voluntary scheme, has been a bit of a joke. It hasn't achieved much at all. And other waste streams, like containers, cans and bottles, plastic, aluminium and cardboard—I was optimistic, as were many other campaigners around the country, that they would be included in a full national product stewardship scheme. The Senate Environment and Communications References Committee recommended that we have a national product stewardship scheme for cans and bottles. My fear is that, if we lose the advisory groups, we'll then lose the scheme because there's no-one there with the expertise.

After dinner, I'll get into the terminology used by the minister as to how they might go forward with a product stewardship scheme on an 'as-needs basis'. I'm not exactly sure what that means. Are we actually going to have any product stewardship schemes in this country? Are we going to bring in industry and producers of waste and work with stakeholders and recyclers and the community—the consumers of plastic—and fix the bloody problem that we've got? It's enormous. I'm chairing the committee inquiry into this at the moment. We had a full day of hearings in Melbourne in December, before we broke for Christmas. We had Visy; we had all the players there, and everybody was putting their hands up in the air, going, 'What are we doing?'

Progress reported.

Sitting suspended from 18:30 to 19:30

I think I might have finished on a question for the minister just before the dinner break, but I will continue until the minister gets here. The explanatory memorandum that all senators have received notes:

The Department of the Environment and Energy will engage with stakeholders on an "as needs" basis on the preparation of the list of classes of products to be considered for some form of accreditation or regulation.

It also suggested the scope for ad hoc consultations by the portfolio department. I would be very interested to hear whether there are any other product stewardship schemes being looked at or planned by the department. I know COAG looks at these issues regularly in its meetings, but I am keen to know how we would determine that 'as needs basis'.

I might also make a few brief comments so I don't have to stand up separately. Actually, to make it easier for you, Temporary Chair Reynolds, I will seek leave to move amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 8357 together.

Leave granted.

I move amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 8357 together:

(1) Schedule 2, page 5 (lines 1 to 20), to be opposed.

(2)Schedule 3, page 6 (lines 1 to 10), to be opposed.

(3)Schedule 7, page 18 (line 1) to page 26 (line 5), to be opposed.

I'll continue to talk to them so we can get straight to voting on the amendments, unless anyone else has anything to contribute.

I want to talk briefly on ASADA. We support the move to abolish the advisory group on the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority, ASADA. We have noted—it's in the explanatory memorandum and we have heard it discussed in second reading speeches today—the group's lack of activity throughout its existence and the fact that there are no current members. But as I know Senator Di Natale, especially, has been involved in issues around the integrity of the current antidoping structures in Australia—indeed, worldwide—we want it noted that questions still remain. It is a bit like the points I've been making in relation to the product stewardship scheme for waste streams. We're abolishing these advisory structures, presumably on the basis that we're going to save a few bucks, but we've still got the issue of tackling the core problems that they were set up to tackle in the first place. You're asking us to support legislation that abolishes the expert advisory groups when we haven't actually solved the problems that they were set up to solve in the first place, so you'll have to forgive us for being a bit sceptical.

Minister, I will ask the question I asked before the dinner break: could you confirm that the Product Stewardship Act is currently under review—that's part of an independent five-year review—and when will that review be completed?