Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The first amendment that the Australian Greens will move on sheet 7078 is a very simple addition to the objects clause in the Products Stewardship Bill 2011 to make explicit that the scope of product stewardship legislation should rightly be:

(c) to contribute to reducing the amount of virgin resources used in products by preferencing recyclate.

I would have thought that was a reasonably commonsense thing to insert in a bill such as this to make absolutely explicit what this is about.

This bill seeks to do a number of things. In respect of the recovery of material and taking this material out of landfill, what we are trying to do here is then plug that material back into product cycles. I think there is a very well understood principle of industrial ecology or cradle-to-cradle product cycles, which says that if you are recovering valuable materials you want to then close those loops and plug that material back into the product cycle so that you are actually reducing the impact of manufacturing in the first place on the raw materials and on the virgin materials that we mine, chop down, refine and so on. So we wish to put a clause into the objects section of the bill because we believe a very important part of the whole enterprise of recycling and encouraging responsible products stewardship is that it reduces the amount of materials being drawn on to create the product in the first place. While the bill will not have a huge impact on the front end of creating the products, and I understand that is not specifically its intention, it is mostly focused on the end of pipe—it is focused on waste and what falls out of the system.

One overall, quite obvious and uncontro­versial aim I would have thought of doing this work is to impact on the way these products are made in the first place. That is obviously a piece of legislation for another day and, if anything, that is even more complex than what we are contemplating here. But I do not think that there is any harm at all—quite the reverse—in inserting a clause into the objects of the bill that at least tips the hat and acknowledges the fact that as we are in the business today in this parlia­ment of recovering materials in the first place, that those materials then be used at the front end. We are trying to encourage recycling. We believe that it should have an intent of impacting on the way that products are made in the first place, so we can take the first tentative steps in Australia towards a closed-loop economy or closed-loop product cycles.

I am happy to speak more on this perhaps once I have heard the views of the opposition and the government on this amendment, and I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 7078:

(1)   Clause 4, page 7 (line 30), at the end of subclause (3), add:

  ; and (c)    to contribute to reducing the amount of virgin resources used in products by preferencing recyclate.

[objects]

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This amendment by the Greens to add clause (c) to the objects of the Product Stewardship Bill 2011 is certainly a well-intentioned amendment and the spirit of the amendment is in some ways difficult to disagree with. Certainly it is a statement that we would hope would be an outcome ultimately of product stewardship schemes in the operation of this act and that there would eventually be, as a result of product stewardship schemes, a reduction in the amount of virgin resources used in product through a higher use of recycled materials. That is something we would hope and expect. This bill will provide for product stewardship schemes that will see, we would hope and expect, an increase in the amount of materials recycled at the end of product, and obviously those products or those materials will be recycled into some other products and will be a substitute for virgin resources.

However, we do not see that there is a need to add this extra part to the objects of the bill, and we do not see that there is a need for a couple of reasons. The objects as they currently stand certainly do not exclude this as a point of consideration. Subclause (1)(a) of the objects is to reduce the impact that products have on the environment throughout their lives and subclause (1)(b) is to reduce the impact that substances con­tained in products have on the environ­ment and on the health and safety of human beings throughout the lives of those products. Neither of those subclauses exclude, I think, what Senator Ludlam is attempting to achieve by virtue of paragraph (c). Indeed, both are relatively broad.

I would make the additional point that of course there are some circular aspects of this act in terms of the way products are accredited for their application. To have a scheme accredited, to have a product stewardship scheme applied, there is a criterion where the minister deems that doing so will meet the objects of the act. That means, that in addition to the product stewardship criteria, which we will debate in a second, the objects are one of the two tests. Obviously, if you inserted paragraph (c) to the objects, there would be a new, additional test for consideration. I suspect that this would not be Senator Ludlam's intent, but it would be possible that, in the way the bill is written at present, all objects would have to be met for something to be accredited, and that would mean that paragraph (c) would have to be met along with paragraphs (a) and (b).

That may not be the case for some schemes that people would wish to accredit. In fact, in particular, when we were working through the product stewardship criteria, we found the importance of issues around hazardous substances and the need for this bill to comply with Australia's international obligations in the treatment of hazardous substances. These are not necessarily substances that will be recycled, and certainly not substances that will be recycled in a manner that would displace the use of virgin resources in making other products. This is simply a way of ensuring that a scheme is in place for the safe and sound management of hazardous substances. I think there is a potential risk that by inserting the proposed paragraph (c) as one of the objects we could create a trip-up within this legislation that would impede its effective operation.

For the reasons that we think the intentions are good but they are by no means excluded by the existing objects and we think there could be some inadvertent issues with the operation of the bill were it to be passed with this amendment, the coalition will not be supporting the amendment. But we hope and expect that, as I said, the sentiments in the amendment are an actual outcome of the operation of this legislation.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate that the government is not supporting this amendment. We have had extensive negotiations with both the Greens and the opposition and we are of the view that the amendment is already implicit in the objectives concerning the promotion of recycling and the reduction of waste. For that reason, we will not be supporting this amendment.

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In addition to the shortcomings identified by Senator Birmingham, I will identify a couple of further ones within this very well-intentioned amendment moved by Senator Ludlam. I am sure that the Greens, and Senator Ludlam in particular, know what is meant in the amendment when it refers to reducing the amount of virgin resources used in products by preferencing recyclate, but neither 'virgin' nor 'recyclate' are terms that are defined in the bill. No doubt the Greens have a concept of 'virgin resources'. Indeed, Senator Hanson-Young once did an advertisement, I think, around that concept, but in a slightly different context. So, whilst the Greens might be clear on what they mean by 'virgin resources' and 'recyclate', those terms are not defined in the bill. That would add additional uncertainty and potential unintended consequences, as Senator Birmingham outlined. The amendment is very well intentioned, but we will oppose it.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You know you are in trouble when you get called 'well intentioned'. That was when my heart sank. I thought perhaps there would be a last-minute change of heart. I would be delighted to work with coalition senators on definitions. Senator Fisher is correct that these are not terms of art—they are not defined in the bill. They are concepts that are very clearly understood in the industry, in the waste management sector in particular. If Senator Fisher feels that some definitions would improve the drafting, I would be more than happy to work up some language to make her happy.

I want to draw the chamber's attention back to when this issue was addressed by the committee as it was evaluating this bill. A number of organisations, particularly Keep Australia Beautiful New South Wales and the Total Environment Centre, raised significant concerns with explicitly men­tioning this. I suppose I have to disagree with both the comments of Senator Birmingham and the parliamentary secretary that these objectives are implied in the existing objects of the bill, because of course the existing objects of the bill refer principally to what happens at the end of life of the materials that we are discussing. They are silent, as they are on many other issues, on the implied consequences of creating new product streams, new resource streams, of material that we are capturing rather than simply throwing away.

For example, Keep Australia Beautiful New South Wales highlighted that one of the ongoing trends in the production of modern goods is their reducing life span. I addressed this in my speech on the second reading in the context of mobile phones. Quite an important part of the enormously increasing waste volumes that we are subject to and are trying to come to grips with here today is this concept of planned obsolescence, the throwaway or consumer society, where it is seen as a very good marketing strategy to get your customers to throw goods away so that they have to buy the new ones that you have produced. That is directly at odds with all sane objectives for creating a sustainable society. It would not matter so much if they were contemplating goods that were essentially biodegradable, completely harmless and made from recycled materials in the first place, but of course, in the instance of mobile phones and so on, that is absolutely not the case. Mobile phones are packed with toxic materials, valuable metals and so on that we would seek to recover. We would seek not to stockpile them in a warehouse but to reuse them. Keep Australia Beautiful New South Wales made the point very clearly that modern consumers will simply throw a product onto a kerb side for council to clean up and buy a brand-new one because the parts are too expensive or too difficult to find. We know in the field of consumer electronics in particular that things that are made these days are designed not to be repairable; when something goes wrong you are supposed to turf it. That is quite a troubling feature of our consumer society. Keep Australia Beautiful highlighted in their submission that when you produce any type of product, there is a set amount of energy and resources that are used and the longer the product is used, the better return on the embodied energy and input of resources. If you can make something last twice as long, its impact, its footprint if you will, is obviously half as heavy. They recommended that the objects of the act be amended to ensure that the lifespan of a product be considered for its impact on waste streams in the environment.

As you will see from the language that we have proposed, we did not quite go there. But we did simply want to insert a paragraph that acknowledges the importance of closing those loops. The Total Environment Centre, who have done an enormous amount of valuable advocacy on this issue over many years, argued more strongly for language that we effectively lifted and proposed—that is, that we should be making a contribution to reducing the amount of 'virgin resources used in products by preferencing recyclate'. It does not go as far as to raise the concerns that Senator Birmingham spoke of—that is, that various products streams will find themselves at odds with this object of the bill if all you were seeking to do, for example, is simply to remove hazardous waste for which you have no further use. It is a contribution to reducing the amount, and I do not think we would face the problem of particular product streams falling foul of the object of the bill when it is worded as generally as that.

The committee report says:

The TEC argued that in addition to the benefit of limiting the amount of new resources used in creating a product, expanding the objects of the Act would have the effect of encouraging the domestic recycling industry …

This is something that is tremendously important that is continually missed in the processes of doing the regulatory impact statements. TEC told the committee:

You create a market for the recyclate and that leads to very significant economic benefits. The fact is that for every tonne of waste that goes to landfill there is one job, but if you take it right through the whole processing and manufacturing system and include that recyclate in a product you create nine jobs.

That is modelling that the Total Environment Centre and some of their colleagues in the waste management industry have been promoting for many, many years—that is, it is more labour intensive but less capital intensive to simply close some of these product loops in the first place.

The committee noted those concerns and came to the view, as I think the minister has stated, that the objects of the bill, while silent in this particular aspect, imply that we should reduce the impact of these virgin resources and instead be preferencing recyclate, for both environmental reasons and sound economic reasons. If you can plug these materials back into product cycles, then again you have created an economic value for them that the market will see, will take note of and will overall reduce the footprint of material cycles. I invite the coalition, if they will, to sharpen the definitions of the materials that Senator Fisher observed are not terms addressed or acknowledged specifically in the bill, and I commend this amendment to the chamber.

Question negatived.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move opposition amendment (1) on sheet 7081:

(1)   Clause 5, page 8 (lines 1 to 34), omit the clause, substitute:

5 Product stewardship criteria

     The product stewardship criteria are satisfied in relation to a class of products if:

  (a)   the products in the class are in a national market; and

  (b)   at least one of the following applies in relation to the products in the class:

     (i)   the products contain hazardous substances;

     (ii)   there is the potential to significantly increase the conservation of materials used in the products, or the recovery of resources (including materials and energy) from waste from the products;

     (iii)   there is the potential to significantly reduce the impact that the products have on the environment, or that substances in the products have on the environment, or on the health or safety of human beings.

Note:   Whether the product stewardship criteria are satisfied in relation to a class of products is relevant for determining whether:

  (a)   to accredit a voluntary arrangement in relation to that class of products (see subsection 13(3)); or

  (b)   regulations can be made under this Act in relation to the class of products (see sections 19 (co-regulatory product stewardship—liable parties for class of products) and 39 (mandatory product stewardship requirements)).

[criteria]

This amendment seeks to replace section 5 of the bill. Section 5 outlines the product stewardship criteria and was a section that was the subject of intense debate and concern during the Senate committee inquiry into this bill. As drafted, section 5 'Product stewardship criteria' states that the criteria are satisfied in relation to a class of products if two or more of a range of paragraphs apply. Those paragraphs are, in some cases, quite broad when compared to the objects of the bill that we have just been discussing. These criteria, as drafted, include a statement that 'the products are in a national market' and a statement:

… taking action to reduce those impacts will offer business opportunities that would make a contribution to the economy.

They would have been two criteria in the bill that would be satisfied, and obviously for those who looked at it and thought this was an extremely broad way to apply criteria and a way that did not necessarily ensure that criteria were applied to ensure that the overriding intention and objects of this bill, which of course are to reduce environmental impacts, to better conserve materials and to ensure an increase in recycling, were the core criteria that had to be met with regard to the legislation.

As I did in my second reading debate speech, I thank the government in particular as well the Greens for working with us on redrafting these criteria and coming up with a tighter, neater form of criteria for the bill, which I believe the amendment does. The amendment provides that products will meet the criteria. Firstly, they must be in a national market and, secondly, they have to meet one of three other criteria. The first, namely that they contain hazardous substances, relates to some of the issues I discussed in regard to Senator Ludlam's amendment. Of course there are chemical substances that we do wish to better regulate and better manage the treatment of, either by Australia's own initiative or as a result of compliance with international obligations, and this legislation could provide a framework to do so. The other two criteria relate very specifically to the objects of reducing environmental impact, achieving better re-use of materials or conservation of materials and minimising the impact or use of those virgin materials that we were just discussing. The other two parts a product category would have to meet have been drawn from the words used in the original section 5 to ensure that we have not thrown the baby out with the bathwater in regard to all of the good consultation that the government did with industry and others with regard to working through the types of words and phrases. But they do ensure that products regulated by this legislation will have to significantly increase the conserva­tion of materials or significantly reduce the impact that the products have on the environment or on health or safety.

So we have very clear tests now. There are essentially three ways for a scheme to be accredited under this legislation: the products contain hazardous substances; there is the potential to significantly increase the conservation of materials used in the products, or increase the recovery of resources from waste from the products; or there is the potential to significantly reduce the impact that the products have on the environment, or that substances in the products have on the environment, or on the health or safety of human beings. These are three very distinct criteria. Under the amendment, one of them will have to be met. I know that it does not totally satisfy all of the concerns of industry or of those who wanted a very prescriptive criteria standard to apply, but I think it provides a far more certain criteria framework, a very clear test that has to be met. In applying that test, the parliament can have far greater confidence that this bill and the operation of this bill and the application of regulations under this bill will actually achieve what we all believe to be the objects of introducing a product stewardship bill.

I commend the amendment to the chamber. I thank in advance the other parties for their cooperation. This amendment works in tandem in a sense with some other amendments that form part of a package that we have all agreed upon to ensure better operation of this bill and of course to ensure the passage of this bill. I will be happy to address any other issues that may be raised by Senator Ludlam or the parliamentary secretary.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate at the outset that the Australian Greens will be supporting this amendment. When it was first proposed, or perhaps when some of the arguments were being tested during the committee process, I had some strong concerns about where the coalition was heading. Senator Fisher, I think, raised on a number of occasions the idea that ultimately product stewardship frameworks could be applied to nearly anything at all. Senator Fisher and other coalition MPs at the time were stating that with a sense of horror, as though it would be a terrible thing if many products which are familiar and in everyday use were to be discarded and then find their way into this framework legislation at some stage. I fail to see why that would necessarily be a bad thing.

The coalition, however, argued in their additional comments that the product stewardship criteria be reworked. I will acknowledge that every witness, with the exception of the department, who came in front of the committee said it is very difficult to detect where the government is heading with this. No priorities have been set. We have no idea whether this is intended to cover the field. How do we know that you are going to go after what some described as the low-hanging fruit or whether you are going to tie us up in going through regulatory impact statements and so on for products that are not necessarily at the top of the list for a product stewardship scheme?

So we are convinced that there are grounds for this. We welcome this amend­ment. I acknowledge that we fought for a little while over the term 'significantly'. I think if that ends up being addressed as too harsh a test by the government—and I invite the parliamentary secretary to address this issue specifically—we may end up finding that nothing finds its way into the scheme, if we are not careful. I know that that is not the government's intention. But I also acknowledge the way that some of the witnesses put this; we are in effect taking it on trust that the political will is there to move products into this framework so that we can actually start to reduce waste volumes in a serious way.

We support criteria that capture all of the potential products that might be appropriate for a scheme like this. I understand the opposition's intention is not to needlessly exclude products that we could usefully pull out of landfill or off the side of the road. They need to have clear meaning. I think it was successfully argued by coalition senators that indeed nearly anything at all could have found its way into this framework. That contributed to the unease expressed by people in industry and by non-government organisations that work on improving waste policy—opposite ends of the spectrum. There was no sense at all about where the government was going to take this.

In evidence given to the committee, Mr Jeff Angel from the Total Environment Centre was asked whether ministerial discretion would set appropriate boundaries or whether in fact this framework would end up applying to every substance and every conceivable product. He said:

What in this bill makes it apply to everything? On paper everything; in practice potentially nothing, as I have outlined.

We could set this framework up and, if it were not for the good work that is being done in the e-waste area, I would be very sceptical as to the value of this bill at all. Mr Angel went on to say:

So it will be somewhere in the middle, or somewhere closer to not very many.

That is: not very many product streams are going to find their way into this framework. He continues:

Knowing how government processes work, how government regulatory assessments work, how industry negotiates and how we have had to work on the various committees, in reality it does not apply to everything. Frankly, I think it is the sort of fiction that puts the bill in a completely wrong perspective and light. What legislation makes everything happen unless it says that everything is going to come under it? It is a discretionary exercise and discretion in ministerial and government terms is very bounded.

That is from the point of view of groups like the Total Environment Centre, which are obviously concerned to see the maximum value and the maximum benefit gained. In some contexts, that might mean that a very wide variety of products wind up in this scheme.

The Australian Food and Grocery Council took a slightly different perspective on it during the same hearing, but effectively arrived at the same conclusion. Mr Mahar from the Australian Food and Grocery Council said:

… based on the broad interpretation. While we support that, our concern is that it leaves too much scope opportunity for secondary regulations to be made in relation to a range of products that are not necessarily compatible with product stewardship schemes or do not lend themselves to arrangements, mandatory or otherwise, that can be implemented under that bill. In our view the criteria currently in the bill are too broad, too wide and too numerous to allow any certainty for business.

Somewhere between those two perspectives there is a range of views that I think all witnesses were very consistent on, which said, 'We need a process here for a prioritisation,' and the coalition, I think, took the view that one way of guiding the government's discretion in that area is to narrow the range of criteria to which this kind of scheme can apply. We think that that is entirely appropriate.

We will support this bill, but I would seek for the minister, in his remarks before we close debate on this amendment, to address his understanding of the term 'significantly' as the government intends it to apply to the way that the criteria will be used.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate that we support this amendment and that it was part of the extensive negotiations that occurred between the various parties which resulted in a consensus about the legislation.

Just on the issue that was raised by Senator Ludlam: the criteria, as amended, do tighten the test for the coverage of a product, whether it is voluntary or regulatory. We would expect that there would be sufficient discretion within the words, for example, 'potential to significantly increase the conservation of materials' to allow for most of what the witnesses referred to as the 'low-hanging fruit' to be covered. That answers your question, and I indicate that we support the amendment.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just to add to the issue: Senator Ludlam is right to highlight that in the discussions about these amendments we had a discussion about the significance of the word 'significantly'. Indeed, we did have some debate. In fact, when first drafted—

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Significant debate!

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was not a 'significant' debate, Senator Fisher, but nor was it an insignificant debate. It was a good moderate discussion.

When first drafted, we actually had inadvertently placed the word 'significantly' in, I think, part B(2) but not in part B(3) or vice versa. We then had to have the discussion as to whether to apply it as a test to both or to neither. In the end the coalition felt it is important to apply it to both. We would not want to see a situation where, especially, co-regulatory or mandatory schemes were put in place if there were only a marginal benefit. I guess that is where we would draw the distinction. We do not see that 'significantly' is a gargantuan test to leap over, but we see it as a way of making sure that we are not entering a realm where it is within the scope of this legislation to apply schemes that would only be of negligible or marginal benefit rather than of a reasonable or significant benefit.

In the end, once all of the low-hanging fruit—to borrow Senator Farrell's words—is picked, then if there is good argument and scope to revisit these definitions I am sure the parliament will be happy to do so. But I suspect it will be quite a period of time before that harvest and bounty is picked. These definitions, as applied, and the use of the word 'significantly' will ensure that we have consistency in the definitions and will ensure that where schemes are being applied they do actually make a difference; a tangible difference that people can see and that will therefore will help to improve the support and embrace of those schemes.

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Obviously, in speaking in support of the amendment I look forward to it enabling the picking of more than just low-hanging fruit. Indeed, feeding into the low-hanging fruit part of the equation is probably best achieved by amendments which we will discuss shortly.

This is tightening the criteria so that they can indeed do as Dr Wright suggested was the government's intent during the inquiry into this bill—that is, to filter. The amendment ensures that the criteria now filter the flotsam and jetsam, if you like, of products and substances which otherwise could have been subject to this bill.

It was not quite the projection of mass hysteria implied by Senator Ludlam that came from some witnesses about the confusion that could result from the fact that the bill, in its current unamended termin­ology, could apply to every product and every substance. But there was significant concern, and for good practical reason. There is no point in having criteria or words in a bit of legislation if they are so wide as to cover everything and to be meaningless. Just as it is a waste to have words in legislation to that end, it is also a waste for any government, as would have been the consequence with the bill in its current terms, to potentially leave industry uncertain about the targets of a particular piece of legislation and the product stewardship regulatory regime which would result.

The government of the day will need the arms and legs of industry to get this cracking. You have only to look at the television and computer industries to see that. We are not going to get TVs off the footpath and out of landfill without the industry, be it in that case a co-regulatory scheme that is being proposed or be it in other sectors mandatory, co-regulatory and/or voluntary. Whatever the mechanism and whatever the means, the government of the day is going to be best placed to achieve its wishes with the cooperation, support and hard work of industry, and you had best get that, Temporary Chair Hutchins, as you would know from your hardworking days prior to coming to the Senate, from industry by getting them onboard on day 1 and getting them understanding and involved in the point that you are aiming at. So these amendments are good.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was ultimately persuaded by arguments that coalition senators raised on the use of the word 'significantly', and I will ask the minister in a moment about where he sees this process going from here. I visualise the fact that anything that would lead to insignificant recovery of materials or recycling would not be worth anybody's while, so we were happy that that test remains in there. But I wonder whether, for the benefit of the chamber but also for the industry and the various sectors that will be intimately affected by the operation of this when it becomes an act, we could be told where this is heading next. What are the priorities? What are the low-hanging fruit? Where is this whole process going? At the moment, we have been speaking, apart from the instances of TVs, computers and so on, mostly in the abstract. I am interested in knowing where the parliamentary secretary sees this process going once this legislation clears the parliament.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is the procedure that we are going to go through in a minute with some of the other amendments to advise industry about what future products will be included. We have set up a mechanism to deal with that. That was all part of the discussions that we had. There will be a number of products which I think are likely to come on the radar very soon. The first is tyres. I think fluorescent lighting and packaging will be issues that will come up in the very near future. Of course, our priority is to ensure that we get the TV and computer program up and running. That is going to be our immediate priority.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for that answer. So as not to tie the chamber up, so we can move through the remainder of the amendments that we have, can the minister point me to somewhere on his website or the department's website—or indicate whether such a document exists as part of the COAG process—that has a list of what the various product types are. The parliamentary secretary named a couple at that point. Are they intended to be voluntary, co-regulatory or mandatory schemes? What recovery targets are anticipated for each of those product streams? When would they proposed to be met? I am not suggesting that the minister necessarily detail that unless he has that information at the table right now, but I would be very interested in knowing whether such a document exists in the first place and whether the parliamentary secretary and the officers at the table would undertake to create such a thing.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My understanding is that such a list does exist on the EPHC website. It is available there. But I will get that confirmed for you.

Question agreed to.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Australian Greens amendments (2) to (4) on sheet 7078:

(2)   Clause 6, page 9 (after line 9), after the definition of administrator, insert:

Advisory Group means the Product Stewardship Advisory Group established by subsection 108B(1).

[Advisory Group]

(3)   Page 92 (after line 27), after clause 108, insert:

108B Product Stewardship Advisory Group

Establishment(1)   The Product Stewardship Advisory Group is established by this subsection.

Function

(2)   The Advisory Group's function is to provide advice to the Minister:

  (a)   at the Advisory Group's own initiative—in relation to the performance of the Minister's function under subsection 108A(1) (products being considered for accreditation or regulation); and

  (b)   when requested to do so by the Minister—in relation to the performance of the Minister's functions under this Act.

Further provisions about the Advisory Group

(3)   Schedule 1 contains further provisions about the Advisory Group.

[Advisory Group]

(4)   Page 93 (after line 20), at the end of the bill, add:

Schedule 1—Product Stewardship Advisory Group

Note:   See subsection 108B(3).

1 Membership of Advisory Group

(1)   The Advisory Group consists of the following members:

  (a)   at least 5,and no more than 9, members appointed under clause 2;

  (b)   a Chair appointed under clause 3.

(2)   The performance of the functions of the Advisory Group is not affected by reason only of the number of Advisory Group members falling below 6 for a period of not more than 6 months.

2 Appointment of members of Advisory Group (other than the Chair)

(1)   An Advisory Group member (other than the Chair) is to be appointed by the Minister, by written instrument, on a part-time basis.

Note:   The Chair of the Advisory Group is appointed under clause 3.

(2)   A person must not be appointed under this clause unless the Minister is satisfied that the person has appropriate qualifications, knowledge or experience.

(3)   Before appointing a person under this clause, the Minister must consult with:

  (a)   one or more groups from among each of the following:

     (i)   groups with technical and scientific expertise;

     (ii)   industry and business groups;

     (iii)   environmental groups;

     (iv)   consumer groups;

     (v)   groups representing local government interests; and

  (b)   State and Territory governments.

(4)   An Advisory Group member appointed under this clause holds office for the period specified in his or her instrument of appointment. The period must not exceed 3 years.

Note: For reappointment, see the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.

3 Appointment of Chair of Advisory Group

(1)   The Minister must appoint a person (other than an Advisory Group member appointed under clause 2) as the Chair of the Advisory Group, by written instrument, on a part-time basis.

(2)   A person must not be appointed as the Chair of the Advisory Group unless the Minister is satisfied that the person has appropriate qualifications, knowledge or experience.

(3)   The Minister may, by written instrument, appoint an Advisory Group member to act as the Chair:

  (a)   during a vacancy in the office of Chair (whether or not an appointment has previously been made to the office); or

  (b)   during any period, or during all periods, when the Chair:

     (i)   is absent from duty or from Australia; or

     (ii)   is, for any reason, unable to perform the duties of the office.

Example:   The Chair would be unable to perform the duties of the office if required not to be present during a deliberation by the Advisory Group, and not to take part in any decision of the Advisory Group, under subclause 8(4) or (5) (disclosure of interests to Advisory Group).

(4)   Anything done by or in relation to a person purporting to act under an appointment is not invalid merely because:

  (a)   the occasion for the appointment had not arisen; or

  (b)   there was a defect or irregularity in connection with the appointment; or

  (c)   the appointment had ceased to have effect; or

  (d)   the occasion to act had not arisen or had ceased

4 Remuneration

(1)   An Advisory Group member is to be paid the remuneration and allowances (if any) that are prescribed by the regulations.

(2)   The office of an Advisory Group member is not a public office within the meaning of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973.

5 Leave of absence

(1)   The Chair of the Advisory Group may grant leave of absence to another Advisory Group member on the terms and conditions that the Chair determines.

(2)   The Minister may grant leave of absence to the Chair of the Advisory Group on the terms and conditions that the Minister determines.

6 Procedures of Advisory Group

(1)   The Advisory Group may determine the way in which it is to perform its function (including when and where it meets and procedures to be followed in relation to its meetings).

(2)   However, subclause (1) applies subject to any written directions given to the Advisory Group by the Minister for the purposes of this subsection.

(3)   The Minister must not give directions under subclause (2) about the content of any advice that may be given to the Minister by the Advisory Group.

(4)   A direction given under subclause (2) is not a legislative instrument.

7 Disclosure of interests to the Minister

     An Advisory Group member must give written notice to the Minister of all interests, pecuniary or otherwise, that the member has or acquires and that conflict or could conflict with the proper performance of the member's functions.

8 Disclosure of interests to the Advisory Group

(1)   An Advisory Group member who has an interest, pecuniary or otherwise, in a matter being considered or about to be considered by the Advisory Group must disclose the nature of the interest to a meeting of the Advisory Group.

(2)   The disclosure must be made as soon as possible after the relevant facts have come to the member's knowledge.

(3)   The disclosure must be recorded in the minutes of the meeting of the Advisory Group.

(4)   Unless the Advisory Group otherwise determines, the Advisory Group member:

  (a)   must not be present during any deliberation by the Advisory Group on the matter; and

  (b)   must not take part in any decision of the Advisory Group with respect to the matter.

(5)   For the purposes of making a determination under subclause (4), the Advisory Group member:

  (a)   must not be present during any deliberation of the Advisory Group for the purpose of making the determination; and

  (b)   must not take part in making the determination.

(6)   A determination under subclause (4) must be recorded in the minutes of the meeting of the Advisory Group.

9 Resignation

(1)   An Advisory Group member may resign his or her appointment by giving the Minister a written resignation.

(2)   The resignation takes effect on the day it is received by the Minister or, if a later day is specified in the resignation, on that later day.

10 Termination of appointment

     The Minister may terminate the appointment of an Advisory Group member:

  (a)   for misbehaviour or physical or mental incapacity; or

  (b)   if the member:

     (i)   becomes bankrupt; or

     (ii)   applies to take the benefit of any law for the relief of bankrupt or insolvent debtors; or

     (iii)   compounds with his or her creditors; or

     (iv)   makes an assignment of his or her remuneration for the benefit of his or her creditors; or

  (c)   if the member is absent, except on leave of absence, from 3 consecutive meetings of the Advisory Group; or

  (d)   if the member fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with clause 7 (disclosure of interests to the Minister) or 8 (disclosure of interests to the Advisory Group).

11 Other terms and condition

     An Advisory Group member holds office on the terms and conditions (if any) in relation to matters not covered by this Act that are determined by the Minister.

[Advisory Group]

Our second set of amendments introduces a product stewardship advisory group. This in many ways goes to the same issues that we have been dealing with so far this morning. It is an idea that was raised by quite a number of those making submissions to the committee.

There were two broad categories of reasons why the Australian Greens felt that this was a valid suggestion and something that would materially improve the way that the bill operates. The first is the lack of priorities established in the legislation that I think we have already canvassed in some detail. Industry and community groups who follow this process have absolutely no idea where it is due to head apart from some very broad-brush issues that the minister outlined there. The second is that the minister, under the way that this act will operate, has very broad powers without any particular accoun­tability mechanism or opportunity for input. So there is enormous discretion there to take issues on, to take various product streams on or not. Environment ministers obviously all get together within the EPHC and as an entity within the larger COAG process, which we find almost completely opaque because what goes on behind those closed doors can be very difficult to influence or even to know, in many cases, what the propositions are. Our amendments pick up the suggestions made by those in the sector who proposed that an advisory group would best comprise experts from industry groups, consumer advocates, community groups, environment groups and scientific groups who would be valuable in providing expert advice on new products that could potentially come under the framework legislation. That not only gives the government some guidance as to where the industry, in the broadest concept of that term, thinks that this process should go but also provides the minister and the community with that advice, that you have the experts around the table when these decisions are being made.

The use of an expert panel was seen as providing forthright advice from outside the bureaucracy. This would be seen to strengthen the governance arrangements. This is nothing against the bureaucrats who have been managing this process to date, but we feel that diversity of opinion and having the experts in the room when the decisions are being made is a way of providing unfiltered advice to the government that can also generate and transmit a sense of urgency coming from the community for various things. For example, we are aware of media reporting a fortnight or so ago about four shipments of e-waste intercepted by Customs, presumably on their way to South-East Asia. That is not what the industry wants, it is not what people think is happening when their computers and televisions are picked up or they drop them off at a neighbourhood recycling centre, but it is still going on. For the government to be able to respond through this expert advisory group to changing circumstances or new information that arises, like the degree of a black market in e-waste shipping and dumping in some of our neighbouring countries, can guide the direction and help give a sense of urgency. WALGA, the Western Australian Local Government Association, said that a panel:

… would ensure that the most important products and those with the biggest potential to create an environmental impact were selected for product stewardship schemes.

As I noted, this is a way of prioritising that has support from industry right through to the community groups and so on.

An example of such an advisory committee being established to manage waste and determine priorities is the statutory Waste Advisory Board in New Zealand. That board is tasked with providing advice to the responsible minister on a range of issues, including:

it is not required to develop a priority list—

…   …   …

…   …   …

The committee's report details the New South Wales model established under that state's Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2001 which established a non-statutory committee with expert, business and non-government representatives to assist the Director-General of the DCCW to develop the list of wastes of concern. I know that the department were probably pretty cautious about establishing this, and I am pleased that the committee process that we went through and the evidence that we received convinced all parties that advice to the minister is ultimately very useful. It convenes and facilitates engagement by the industry and it is effectively an opportunity for the government to get it right. I commend these amendments to the chamber.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate the coalition's support for this package of amendments which essentially establish the Product Stewardship Advisory Group. This ties in with amendments that are to be moved by the government. We hope these amendments will together provide greater certainty for industry and for all those who are stakeholders within the operation of this act once it is passed.

We heard the concerns that Senator Ludlum outlined, that people were not sure that there was sufficient certainty about where things were going under the operation of the product stewardship scheme, the priorities for future schemes and whether they would be considered in the context of voluntary, co-regulatory or mandatory schemes, exactly how these things would work, how priorities would be set and how much forewarning there would be that an industry could be captured by such a scheme.

Whilst the government has been at pains throughout to emphasise that processes of the regulatory impact statement and otherwise will take some time, that the prioritisation work done by the Environment Protection and Heritage Council will take some time and that there should be in the normal operation of things a good period of time for anyone to become aware that their industry is under consideration, the expec­tation is that these things will always be done in a consultative and cooperative framework. You will get the best outcomes by involving industry along the way. All of those things aside and despite the assurances given, it was still thought to be beneficial to the trans­parency of the operation of the scheme for other stakeholders to have the opportunity to have input about the priorities and, for the certainty of industry, that within the legislation there was a framework for input and prioritising and that that framework ensured that there was some public awareness of it.

The amendments moved by Senator Ludlam to establish the Product Stewardship Advisory Group provide for a structure for that input, for advice to the minister and to the council and for prioritisation. The amendments to be moved by Senator Ludlam shortly require the publishing of products that are being considered for accreditation or regulation under the act. They tie in with this and will ensure that there is public awareness and certainty for all parties. Again, I express my thanks to the other parties for the cooperative approach in addressing the concerns that the Senate committee identified and indicate the coalition's support for these amendments.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate the government supports these amendments. Following on from what Senator Birmingham said, I thank the parties for the cooperative way in which they worked with the department to come up with this proposal.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before we move on, I want to put to the minister a question around an issue that I raised earlier, which is whether he considers the establishment of this advisory group as providing a mechanism for doing a couple of things: firstly, having the expert views in the room and, secondly, publishing lists of particular products or categories of waste that might soon fall under the scheme. As has been made very clear, we have three different ways of regulating different kinds of waste: voluntary schemes, where the industry goes ahead and sets up its own scheme, of which I guess the MobileMuster is an example; the co-regulatory scheme, where we see the industry working with government to establish a scheme that it can then be held to; and mandatory schemes—for example, with very hazardous materials where you do not want things left to chance.

In the broadest conception of this, if we get it right the first time and there is all the goodwill at the table and industry comes to the party and so on, the right products will be put in the right one of those three categories and all of a sudden, within a couple of years, we will see dramatic reductions in landfill; we will see dramatic increases in resource recovery and efficiency of recycling; we will see a huge reduction, for example, in greenhouse gas emissions from landfill as organic material is removed; and the scheme will be working as intended. My question to the minister is: at what point will assess­ments be made as to whether the targets for the various product streams—let us take the example of mobile phones—have failed to be met or are not strong enough in the first place and we still have huge volumes of material just heading out to landfill or being thrown away? What will the process be for re-evaluation of whether something should go from voluntary to co-reg or from co-reg to mandatory? What will be the levers that will drive take-up of higher recycling? What will be the penalties, for example, for missing a particular target? How does the minister envisage the advisory group driving those improvements in performance if, with a particular product or class of materials, we are still sitting here in five years time with, for example, five per cent recovery rates of mobile phones under a voluntary scheme? What will be the process of assessment whereby it is taken out of the voluntary space and, for example, we initiate a co-regulatory mechanism?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Ludlam, for that question. I have the greatest of confidence that with the amount of effort that we have put into this legislation, and the amount of time that you and the opposition have put into it, we have developed a program which will ensure that we move forward in the direction that you certainly want us to head in. I cannot predict the future, but I do have the greatest of confidence that we will progress in the area of recycling and the areas that you are concerned about as a result of this legislation. If it turns out that it does not work in the way in which we hope or expect then obviously we will look at that and relook at it. But I think the effort that all of the parties have put into getting to this point will result in this legislation working in the way that we intend it to work. Obviously if it does not then the issue is going to have to be revisited, but I have the greatest of confidence that this legislation will do exactly what we intend it to do.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The reason that I raise this issue is that it is good that the parliamentary secretary has this high degree of confidence that the system is going to work because there is goodwill—as we have seen, there is tripartisan consensus, in this chamber at least, that this is a scheme that needs to get up and go forward—but, when you say that the bill will act as intended, there are no targets; it is an empty framework. There are no levers, for example. I would seek to have the parliamentary secretary address speci­fically the issue that I asked about: what triggers or thresholds will be set, either legislatively or as part of the work of this advisory group, that would move a product category or product scheme from one tier to the next? At what point do we say a particular voluntary scheme is not working and needs to be tightened up? There is nothing in the bill—maybe you could point it out if I have missed it—that would require that kind of transition to a higher standard of performance if we are failing in one particular area.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for the question, Senator Ludlam. The key inputs to the legislation, of course, are the advisory groups, the international agreements and the environment ministers council. If any one of those groups is of the view that the legislation is not working then of course it will raise that and we will deal with it on a case-by-case basis. We have the TV and computer program; that will be the first test. I am very confident that that will, particularly once we have written the regulations, demonstrate to the community that this legislation works. But there are processes by which organisations can raise any concerns about failing to meet the expectations of the legislation, and I am sure that that is what will happen.

Question agreed to.

I table the supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill. The memorandum was circulated in the chamber on 12 May 2011. I seek leave to move the government amendments together.

Leave granted.

I move government amendments (1) to (15) on sheet AF202 together:

(1)   Clause 9, page 13 (line 11), omit "(1) Subject to subsections(2) and (3), this Act", substitute "This Act".

[relationship to State and Territory laws]

(2)   Clause 9, page 13 (line 15) to page 14 (line 23), omit subclauses (2) and (3).

[relationship to State and Territory laws]

(3)   Clause 17, page 21 (line 17), after "that", insert ", among other things".

[products for regulation]

(4)   Heading to subclause 19(3), page 25 (line 1), at the end of the heading, add "etc.".

[products for regulation]

(5)   Clause 19, page 25 (line 8), at the end of paragraph (3)(b), add "; and".

[products for regulation]

(6)   Clause 19, page 25 (after line 8), after paragraph (3)(b), insert:

  (c)   if regulations made for the purposes of subsection (1) are not already in force in relation to the class of products:

     (i)   the class of products has been notified in accordance with subsection (3A) no later than 12 months beforehand; or

     (ii)   there are special circumstances justifying the making of the regulations without that notification.

[products for regulation]

(7)   Clause 19, page 25 (after line 10), after subclause (3), insert:

(3A)   For the purposes of subparagraph (3)(c)(i), a class of products must be notified by being included in a list or notice, published on the Department's website, of classes of products in relation to which the Minister is proposing to consider whether some form of accreditation or regulation under this Act might be appropriate.

(3B)   If the Governor-General makes regu­lations to which subparagraph (3)(c)(ii) applies in relation to a class of products, the regulations must, when laid before both Houses of Parliament under section 38 of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003, be accompanied by a statement, prepared by the Minister, setting out the special circumstances mentioned in that subparagraph.

[products for regulation]

(8)   Clause 36, page 41 (line 14), after "that", insert ", among other things".

[products for regulation]

(9)   Clause 37, page 43 (line 28), omit "paragraph 39(c)", substitute "paragraph 39(1)(c)".

[products for regulation]

(10) Clause 39, page 44 (line 29), omit "Before", substitute "(1) Before".

[products for regulation]

(11)    Clause 39, page 45 (line 13), at the end of subparagraph (c)(ii), add "; and".

[products for regulation]

(12)    Clause 39, page 45 (after line 13), after paragraph (c), insert:

  (d)   if regulations made for the purposes of section 37 are not already in force in relation to the class of products:

     (i)   the class of products has been notified in accordance with subsection (2) no later than 12 months beforehand; or      (ii)   there are special circumstances justifying the making of the regulations without that notification.

[products for regulation]

(13)    Clause 39, page 45 (line 18), at the end of the clause, add:

(2)   For the purposes of subparagraph (1)(d)(i), a class of products must be notified by being included in a list or notice, published on the Department's website, of classes of products in relation to which the Minister is proposing to consider whether some form of accreditation or regulation under this Act might be appropriate.

(3)   If the Governor-General makes regulations to which subparagraph (1)(d)(ii) applies in relation to a class of products, the regulations must, when laid before both Houses of Parliament under section 38 of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003, be accompanied by a statement, prepared by the Minister, setting out the special circumstances mentioned in that subparagraph.

[products for regulation]

(14)    Heading to clause 108, page 92 (line 1), omit "on Department's website", substitute "about arrangements".

[products for regulation]

(15)    Page 92, (after line 27), after clause 108, insert:

108A Publishing material about products being considered for accreditation or regulation under this Act

(1)   The Minister must publish on the Department's website, before the end of each financial year that starts after the commencement of this Act:

  (a)   a list of classes of products in relation to which the Minister is proposing to consider, during the next financial year, whether some form of accreditation or regulation under this Act might be appropriate; and

  (b)   the reason (or reasons) why the Minister is proposing to give that consideration.

(2)   In preparing a list of classes of products as required by paragraph (1)(a), the Minister may have regard to any matter the Minister considers relevant, including:

  (a)   whether the product stewardship criteria are satisfied in relation to those classes of products; and

  (b)   whether one or more of the following apply in relation to the products in those classes:

     (i)   reusing, recycling, recovering, treating or disposing of the products involves a significant cost to the Commonwealth, or State, Territory or local governments;

     (ii)   the consumer is willing to pay for action that reduces the impact that the products have on the environment, or that substances contained in the products have on the environment, or on the health or safety of human beings;

     (iii)   taking action to reduce those impacts will offer business opportunities that would make a contribution to the economy.

(3)   The Minister must cause to be tabled in both Houses of Parliament a list of classes of products published under paragraph (1)(a), accompanied by the reason (or reasons) in relation to that list published under paragraph (1)(b), within 15 sitting days after the day of that publication.

[products for regulation/criteria]

In the interests of time, Mr Temporary Chairman, I will not address them.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Equally in the interests of time, I indicate that I addressed the primary substance of these amendments in my comments with regard to Senator Ludlam's amendment. These are comple­mentary to a number of the other things that we have done and particularly to the establishment of the advisory group. These amendments will provide for the publication of those materials that are being considered for accreditation or regulation under the act and in doing so will basically give industry and groups 12 months of forewarning that an issue is on the books and under considera­tion. The likelihood is the processes will end up taking much longer than that to get from beginning to end, but at least there is in a sense a minimum time frame in here, aside from special circumstances, that ensures there is some certainty and awareness. The coalition will be supporting the amendments.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will address some brief remarks to these amendments. I am a bit surprised that the minister did not see fit to at least briefly describe to the chamber what they actually do. There are a number here, and I am happy to address the issue of publication in advance. As Senator Birmingham has indi­cated, you would have to be not paying attention for a very long period of time to be caught out by the government's intention to regulate in one of these product stewardship schemes; these things I think are agreed well in advance. All the same, the Greens cer­tainly will not be opposing the listing in advance. That was one of the things that the committee recommended should happen to provide clarity. We would see that these amendments would work in concert with the creation of the advisory group, whereby, after the whole process has been gone through of setting priorities and hopefully establishing targets and at least implied consequences for failure to meet some of those targets, they would then make their way onto the proposed register to give everybody in the community and the industry clarity about where the process seeks to go. I do not think there is anything controversial about those amendments.

I should also acknowledge that the amendments the government is seeking to batch up here and move also affect the way that this legislation will interact with state and territory laws. As I said at the outset we know that, in the policy vacuum that effectively has been the Commonwealth response to waste management in recent decades, the states and territories have gone ahead and done their own thing in many areas. So one or two of the amendments that the government is seeking to pass here ensure, for example, that state laws that might be stronger or more effective than processes established at the Commonwealth level are not expunged or wiped out by the bill. The importance of this could be seen in the example of South Australia, where we have a container deposit scheme that is very much worth preserving.

The South Australian container deposit scheme has been operating since 1977 and it has been an inspiration for the rest of the country. We have seen that initiative now spread to the Northern Territory and, as I said earlier, Colleen Hartland MLC, my colleague in the Victorian parliament, is moving possibly as we speak to introduce a similar scheme in Victoria. In South Australia the service has expanded to include kerbside collection, expanded the range of containers to which deposits and refunds apply and increased the deposit to 10c. But that is a scheme that careless legislation by the Commonwealth could accidentally wipe out, if we were not careful.

South Australia now has a drink container recovery rate of over 80 per cent and there is a notable lack of litter on highways, on parks and on beaches. South Australians recycle over 1½ tonnes per person per year. The container deposit system in South Australia also benefits community organisations like scout groups that operate container collection depots. That is one of the areas where, again, we could accidentally do quite a bit of damage in here if we wipe out a scheme that has been operating successfully in South Australia. The collection depots that the Australian Greens seek in our national container deposit bill would be paid for by the operation of the scheme which would establish a network of neighbourhood recyc­ling places. While they would start out as being just for beverages they would end up being used to collect a great deal more. Scout groups in South Australia, for example, earn $9 million a year from that recycling activity, and 92 per cent of South Australians report a high level of support for their container deposit system.

Today in the Victorian parliament, as I said, Colleen Hartland MLC is reintroducing her bill for a 10c refundable deposit on drink bottles, cans and cartons in Victoria. In 2009 her private member's bill passed in Victoria's upper house, the Legislative Council, where it gained support from all opposition parties. The then government quite famously refused to debate the bill in the lower house, where they had an absolute majority. It is worth noting that the Victorian opposition MPs who supported her 10c deposit legislation in 2009 are now in government, so it will be very interesting to see the outcome now. What this means, of course, is that because of Commonwealth inaction in this space we now have developing a patchwork of different pieces of legislation. All of them, I suspect, will work very well, but nonetheless there will be different sets of regulations applying to industries differently in the states and territories when the Commonwealth could have taken a leadership position rather than simply burying the proposal for a national scheme.

In the Northern Territory, 10c deposit legislation passed unanimously. It did not end up getting party political; it ended up being the Northern Territory assembly versus the beverage industry, which was fascinating to watch. We do not seek to politicise these issues, as we have seen in the way this debate has been conducted today. What I would invite the minister to do, though, is address something that these amendments are silent on, and that is: what will happen when a Commonwealth scheme comes into effect? We know that it will not squash a state or territory scheme that is better, that it will operate at a Commonwealth level, and that is appropriate. But what will be the case where the Commonwealth brings in legislation that is better than a state or territory scheme? What will be the impacts when a product stewardship scheme introduced under this framework legislation conflicts with a state or territory scheme when the Commonwealth scheme might be an improvement? How will that actually work?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for the question, Senator Ludlam. I indicate that generally speaking the way in which this matter is dealt with is that there are negotiations through COAG for the states to deal with this redundant legislation.

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.