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

I'll warn senators that I might be talking for a while. It doesn't mean I won't call a quorum, so don't count your chickens! I have a number of amendments to move tonight. The government has actually made six or seven minor amendments to the legislation before us tonight after speaking with the Greens—Senator Birmingham touched on it in his speech. Senators are probably aware that it takes some time for these things to come together. We've been having discussions for a number of months with key stakeholders. We circulated our amendments that are before the Senate tonight, I would have thought, nearly two months ago. There have been some minor revisions, and we've made some changes, but we've been very conscious to make sure that everybody has seen these amendments. Two of them are substantive. I thank senators for their time, especially in recent days, going through those substantive amendments with us. We wanted to get that very clear upfront. We've circulated these with plenty of time. I understand that there may be reasons why political parties will vote against the Greens' amendments tonight, but I certainly hope they're not on the back of minor technical details, because we've put an incredible effort into trying to work through this with everyone. I want to acknowledge, again, Minister Trevor Evans in the other place. Thank you for listening to some of our concerns. As I said, there are six or seven amendments that the government has already put in. They were fairly minor, but they were nevertheless important, especially in terms of stakeholders wanting to be more confident that this is going to be a robust piece of legislation.

Minister Birmingham mentioned that the government had consulted very broadly in putting this legislation together. Having been through a separate Senate inquiry, which I talked about in my second reading speech on the Greens' private member's bill which our amendments are based on, I'm very familiar with who all the stakeholders are. May I say that consultation is not the same thing as listening to stakeholders as to what they want. If you'd consulted broadly and you'd listened to key stakeholders, you would be supporting the Greens' amendments and we wouldn't be having a committee stage tonight.

I'd like to very briefly remind the Senate of who those key stakeholders are. They're local governments around the country and local government organisations that support mandatory product stewardship schemes and support banning problematic single-use plastics. There are the environment movement and community groups, like Plastic Free July, and a whole range of groups that also support mandatory schemes and banning single-use plastics. Then, of course, there's the recycling industry, which I mentioned. Recyclers in Australia employ over 60,000 Australians. They have made it very clear in the Senate inquiry, to Senator Birmingham, and in the Senate inquiry into the Greens' private member's bill that they demand mandatory product stewardship schemes. They have been there for the last 30 years and seen the packaging industry consistently fail, under voluntary schemes or coregulatory schemes, to meet their targets. They say, 'If you want us to put money into your recycling funds, if you want us to co-invest, if you want us to upgrade our infrastructure, our technology and our processes, we need the architecture right.'

The fourth stakeholder is the packaging industry. No jellybeans for guessing who doesn't want a mandatory scheme—it's the packaging industry. However, as I mentioned in my second reading speech, those in the industry were very clear that, with the voluntary schemes that this bill enshrines in law—it takes existing ambition and says: 'These are your voluntary schemes. We're going to put them into law'—they're going to meet those voluntary schemes. They're very confident they're going to meet their 2025 targets. The Food and Grocery Council said that. Woolworths said that. Amcor said that. It's been very clear that they're very confident they're going to meet their targets. Senator Birmingham also referenced additional costs. We have to be very careful, in this environment, about imposing costs. Woolworths said black and white in the Senate inquiry that, because they're taking their voluntary scheme so seriously and they're so determined to meet their 2025 targets, there will be no additional cost to them of a mandatory scheme because they have to do the same thing anyway. That comes directly from a company that has consistently opposed any kind of government regulation around plastics. That's what they said in a Senate inquiry. I'm happy to read those things to senators or to the minister if they haven't seen those.

This frames up where we are tonight. If we actually want to take real action on plastic pollution and we want to create real jobs then we need to vote for these amendments. It's very much a half-cocked approach to say, 'We're going to ban the export of problematic wastes like plastics', which puts the onus back on us to deal with them, and then on the other hand say, 'We're not going to put in place the architecture that successfully does that, that builds a circular economy so that everything is designed for its end of life.' The recycling industry are saying, for example: 'We do not have faith or any confidence that the packaging industry will meet their targets. If you want us to invest, if you want Australian jobs and if you want to fix the problem, give us some certainty.' That's what we can do tonight. I seek leave to move together my amendments on single-use plastic, which are on sheet 1030 revised.

Leave granted.

In respect of the Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill 2020, I move Greens amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 1030 revised together:

(1) Clause 10, page 7 (line 3) to page 12 (line 4), insert:

plastics exempt act: see section 94M.

prohibited plastic: see section 94L.

(2) Clause 66, page 67 (after line 13), after the paragraph beginning "These requirements might", insert:

As part of the mandatory product stewardship regime, there are specific prohibitions on certain plastics that are to be phased in over time.

(3) Page 100 (after line 16), after Part 5, insert:

Part 5B—Mandatory product stewardship—prohibition of certain plastics

94L Prohibited plastics

(1) On and after 1 January 2022, a product made of, or that contains,plastic is a prohibited plastic if the product:

(a) is a lightweight carrier bag; or

(b) consists of microbeads.

(2) On and after 1 January 2023, a product made of, or that contains,plastic is a prohibited plastic if:

(a) the product is manufactured to be principally used by a person only once before being disposed of; and

(b) the product is one of the following:

(i) a set of connected rings to hold things;

(ii) a cotton bud;

(iii) a stick for balloons;

(iv) a product specified in rules for the purposes of this subparagraph.

(3) On and after 1 January 2023, a product made of, or that contains,non-compostable plastic is a prohibited plastic if:

(a) the product is manufactured to be principally used by a person only once before being disposed of; and

(b) the product is:

(i) a straw or stirrer; or

(ii) cutlery or a kitchen utensil; or

(iii) a plate, bowl or other dish.

(4) On and after 1 January 2023, a product is a prohibited plastic if:

(a) the product is manufactured to be principally used by a person only once before being disposed of; and

(b) the product is:

(i) a food or beverage container made of, or that contains, expanded polystyrene; or

(ii) made of, or that contains, oxo-degradable plastic.

(5) The rules may exempt a product from being a prohibited plastic.

(6) For the purposes of subparagraph (4)(b)(i), container includes (without limitation) any cup, drinkware, pack, carton, box, tin, packet, bag, pouch, tube or other container.

94M Plastics exempt act

(1) An act in relation to a prohibited plastic is a plastics exempt act if:

(a) the prohibited plastic is a straw; and

(b) the act is to supply the straw to a person, or a class of person, who has a disability (within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992); and

(c) the disability is such that, a failure to supply the straw, would cause inconvenience for, or potential harm to, the person, or class of person, with the disability.

(2) The rules may provide that a specific act in relation to a prohibited plastic is a plastics exempt act (including by providing that an act is a plastics exempt act if specified conditions are met).

(3) Before the Minister makes rules that provide that a specified act in relation to a prohibited plastic is a plastics exempt act, the Minister must be satisfied of one or more of the following in relation to the act:

(a) the act is necessary to satisfy food safety requirements;

(b) the act is necessary to ensure the access needs of one or more specified persons, or classes of person, are being met;

(c) the act relates to medical purposes, therapeutic purposes or other purposes relating to health;

(d) the act relates to providing or ensuring the security or personal safety of one or more specified persons, or classes of person.

94N Prohibited plastics—constitutional corporations

(1) A person contravenes this subsection if:

(a) the person is a constitutional corporation; and

(b) the person manufactures, imports, distributes or uses a prohibited plastic for commercial purposes; and

(c) the manufacture, importation, distribution or use is not a plastics exempt act.

Fault -based offence

(2) A person commits an offence if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Penalty: 600 penalty units.

Strict liability

(3) A person commits an offence of strict liability if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Penalty: 300 penalty units.

Civil penalty provision

(4) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Civil penalty: 1,200 penalty units.

94P Prohibited plastics—persons other than constitutional corporations

(1) A person contravenes this subsection if:

(a) the person manufactures, imports, distributes or uses a prohibited plastic; and

(b) the manufacture, importation, distribution or use of the prohibited plastic was:

(i) in the course of, or for the purposes of, constitutional trade and commerce; or

(ii) in a Territory for commercial purposes; or

(iii) on behalf of a constitutional corporation for commercial purposes; or

(iv) for the purposes of supplying goods to a constitutional corporation; and

(c) the manufacture, importation, distribution or use is not a plastics exempt act.

Fault -based offence

(2) A person commits an offence if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years or 120 penalty units, or both.

Strict liability

(3) A person commits an offence of strict liability if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Penalty: 60 penalty units.

Civil penalty provision

(4) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Civil penalty: 240 penalty units.

(4) Clause 102, page 110 (after line 6), after paragraph (1)(q), insert:

(qe) subsection 94N(3);

(qf) subsection 94P(3);

Let me start by talking to these amendments. I was very pleased with Senator Birmingham's contribution, in which he talked about the need to harmonise—that's a word that has come up consistently in our Senate inquiries—a state based approach to banning single-use plastics. Back in 2017, in a world-first Senate inquiry that a number of us participated in—I was very proud that this Senate looked into the problem of marine plastic pollution—one of the recommendations was to ban certain single-use plastics. Unfortunately the European Parliament beat us. They were the first parliament in the world to look at what they found on their beaches and in their oceans. Their definition of a single-use plastic was something that had a readily available alternative so that it wasn't going to inconvenience customers or businesses. They could determine what those plastic products were—like plastic cutlery, for example—and they could say: 'We don't need that. We are going to ban the sale of it. We are going to ban the production of it. There are better alternatives.' So the European Parliament came up with this legislation that was world-beating. I was quite keen to include some of that in an amendment, but after discussions with Labor we have revised certain aspects of our other amendments to incorporate just the packaging covenant ambition.

To get back to single-use plastics, the European Union have done this, so it's definitely possible. The Prime Minister claims he told the UN he wanted to act on plastic pollution. If he wanted to do one thing in this parliament, just one thing, to stop plastics going into the ocean, he would do what the European Union did—take the 10 most common plastics we find in the ocean that we've already got alternatives for and simply ban them. That would be the most important thing he could do. But that's not on the table. It's not on the cards tonight, except in a Greens amendment. No-one has been able to give me a good reason why, especially, and here's the rub, since the states are already doing it. Recently Queensland banned certain single-use plastics. South Australia led the charge, as they did around container deposit schemes many years ago. Western Australia has just put in place a ban on single-use plastics. Sadly, Tasmania, Victoria and New South Wales haven't followed yet but they are very likely to do that.

Whether they're the packaging industry, whether they're the recycling industry or whether they're local government—who, by the way, are also banning single-use plastics in their local jurisdictions—everybody agrees that we need a national scheme. We need harmonisation. I accept it's not going to happen overnight. That's why we have given in these bills, after consultation, plenty of time for this ban to come into place, where we actually harmonise the scheme. It's good for business, it's good for the ocean and it's exactly what the Australian public want, let me tell you. They are ready for a ban on problematic single-use plastics.

Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to speak to these particular amendments because they showcase how important it is, as we legislate around these critical issues, to be engaged with all of the communities in different states that may well be affected by legislation as it passes through this place. The reality is that disabled people are very much environmentalists too. We don't want to have to, in the course of these debates, choose between the mobility aids that we need to live our daily lives and the action to protect our environment that we know is so urgently needed. We don't want to have to put our own care needs above the environment, and we have an effective solution to this that ensures that our voices are part of a process of implementing policies which interact with our care needs. This is a really critical point: to avoid ending up in a situation where you've got yourself a really damaging dichotomy, it is so important to engage with disabled people in these processes. We have done just that.

Senator Whish-Wilson and I worked with the disability community over the process of putting together these amendments and it became very clear that there were a number of issues that needed to be addressed, one of which is the reality that renewable straws are not appropriate or usable by many disabled people; there are various reasons why disabled people require plastic straws and why some do not have the ability to use alternatives such as metal, paper, glass, bamboo or—indeed—silicone straws as has been proposed by some. Often these issues relate to the nature of the person's impairment. Some of the other reasons raised by the community include the fact that these options can potentially harm disabled people, and they include choking hazards and quite serious injuries. Non-plastic straws also create difficulties with being able to appropriately position and use. They can incur a higher cost and many of them are not safe to use with high-temperature liquids.

We can create solutions to the massive environmental challenges that face our society while also being inclusive of disabled people, and I think this is the important point. There is work to be done in the development of renewable straws and reusable straws that do meet these accessibility requirements, and the pressure and the onus to make these developments must lie fairly and squarely with manufacturers. It should not be the responsibility of disabled people to advocate for their right to consume foods and liquids like the rest of the community. Limiting the use of plastic products to the greatest degree possible whilst continuing to allow them to be available as a necessary tool for disabled people to use to eat and drink isn't unreasonable; it is, indeed, very achievable. We have specific sections of the propositions put forward by Senator Whish-Wilson which deal with this.

As I say, we have worked closely with community to develop these solutions, and we would like to acknowledge that banning plastic straws and the conversations that often take place around these topics impact on disabled people. They're often a source of distress because being able to go out in public, to be able to drink in public and socialise and participate in community life, is really important. That is why, into this proposition, we have built in relevant exemptions. One amendment has within its sections exemptions which relate specifically to the need to use plastic straws as a mobility aid.

With the short time I've got left, I will read the relevant section that is proposed by Senator Whish-Wilson:

94M Plastics exempt act

(1) An act in relation to a prohibited plastic is a plastics exempt act if:

(a) the prohibited plastic is a straw; and

(b) the act is to supply the straw to a person, or a class of person, who has a disability (within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992); and

(c) the disability is such that, a failure to supply the straw, would cause inconvenience for, or potential harm to, the person, or class of person, with the disability.

(2) The rules may provide that a specific act in relation to a prohibited plastic is a plastics exempt act (including by providing that an act is a plastics exempt act if specified conditions are met).

(3) Before the Minister makes rules that provide that a specified act in relation to a prohibited plastic is a plastics exempt act, the Minister must be satisfied of one or more of the following in relation to the act:

(a) the act is necessary to satisfy food safety requirements;

(b) the act is necessary to ensure the access needs of one or more specified persons, or classes of person, are being met;

(c) the act relates to medical purposes, therapeutic purposes or other purposes relating to health;

(d) the act relates to providing or ensuring the security or personal safety of one or more specified persons, or classes of person.

So the comprehensive structure that we offer is one which would lay the framework for a flexible structure in which we could deal with what is undoubtedly, undeniably, an environment challenge of significant proportion while also ensuring the retention of the right of disabled people to use the mobility aids that are available to them in a way that enables us to be part of the communities in which we live.

I want to thank Senator Whish-Wilson for his engagement on this issue. It's been a pleasure to work with him on it and to continue to work together as we chart a course in this space that avoids false dichotomies between protecting our precious places and ensuring that the rights of disabled people are upheld.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I might indicate at the beginning that Senator Whish-Wilson is correct: he has sought to engage, certainly outside the chamber, in relation to his amendments and we thank him for that. It may be that we aren't able to provide support for some of the amendments that have been circulated. But, in relation to the amendments before us now, we will be opposing those amendments. It's true that some single-use plastics are unnecessary and harmful, and they should be designed out and eliminated as soon as possible. As Senator Whish-Wilson indicated, some state and territory governments already have or are planning to take legislative action to do exactly this. It really doesn't make sense for these things to happen one by one without the coordinated support of the federal government. Nonetheless, it's not responsible to try and tackle this issue through an amendment without coordinating the reform process with those states and territories, and also seeking an analysis of the impact of the approach that's selected. It's on those grounds that we are not in a position to support these amendments tonight.

We do call on the Morrison government to stop abrogating what should be the Commonwealth's national leadership role. We should seek to avoid repeating what has happened with container deposit schemes, where there are different schemes and different arrangements across different states and territories. Senator Whish-Wilson referred to harmonisation. The only entity that is possibly capable of doing that is the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth should take that responsibility and commence work with states and territories on this question.

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

I might start with a question for the minister on these amendments. Perhaps I could very quickly run through this, because it's the most common question I get asked by people: 'What does a single-use plastic ban actually mean?' The media say: 'What are you actually going to ban?' So, very quickly, by 1 January 2022, this exemption would ban lightweight carrier bags—some of which have been banned in states, but not comprehensively—and microbeads, which are still part of a voluntary scheme and haven't been totally banned. By 1 January 2023, in three years time, six-pack plastic ring holders would be banned. If you don't think they're bad news in the oceans, go onto my Instagram—I'll give myself, Senator Surfer, a plug—and have a look. There's a bit of joviality there, but the picture is very serious. It's a photo of a fairy penguin in my home state of Tasmania taken by a friend of mine, a bushwalker. He runs a big shop in Launceston and is quite well known. The penguin's been choked by one of the six rings; the other five are sticking out from around its neck. You can clearly see where this poor distressed bird has suffocated from plastic ingestion, like—and I don't exaggerate this—millions of other sea creatures. We know hundreds of thousands of birds alone die from plastic ingestion, not to mention other creatures who cross paths with a whole range of different plastics in the ocean.

So we want to remove cotton buds; balloon sticks; straws; stirrers; cutlery; plates, bowls and other dishes; polystyrene food and beverage containers; and oxo-degradable food and beverage containers. I will state that, even in the recent Western Australian government ban, they highlighted the need for federal coordination at some stage. So here is my question to the minister. These are products that have readily available alternatives, and the list is based on the EU legislation. Minister, are you familiar with the directive of the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment, commonly referred to as the EU directive, which was passed in March 2019 and formally adopted by the Council of the European Union in May 2019? Are you aware of the details of that legislation and the fact that they banned these harmful single-use plastics to protect the ocean?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Whish-Wilson. I thank you for your amendments and, at the outset, thank you for the thoughtful contribution you made in moving the amendments and Senator Steele-John for his contribution in terms of the framing of the amendments and some of the exemptions that were considered and placed by the Australian Greens in these amendments. I thank you because I know that the amendments and, indeed, the contributions you've made come from a very genuine place in both of your instances. The outcomes that you are seeking to achieve through these amendments are outcomes that I think Senator McAllister indicated sympathy for, and they're also outcomes that the government has sympathy for in terms of seeing, ultimately, an end of use, manufacture, import and distribution in relation to the plastics that you've cited in your amendment, such as shopping bags, straws and microbeads.

As you acknowledged in your contribution, Senator Whish-Wilson, states are already legislating to phase out a number of single-use plastics, and the Commonwealth does look to play a supportive and, where possible, coordinating role over time in this regard. I referenced in my contribution the National Plastics Summit that brought together states, territories, industry and others in March of this year, which is outlining the development of a national plastics plan. That seeks to target the different stages of the plastic life cycle, and I think that, along with other fora that bring together Commonwealth, state and territory environment ministers, provides an opportunity for us to work towards a greater harmonisation in relation to the steps that the states are taking. We welcome that. Industry too are taking steps, and we note that there has been a substantial phasing out of microbeads. Some estimate that 99.3 per cent are now phased out, and the government will continue to work with industry along with the states and territories in that regard.

We do believe at this stage that seeking cooperation and collaboration is the appropriate way to be able to build upon the gains that have been made and to maintain that goodwill in those discussions, which is why we do not support the amendments as you've put them forward. I should also thank you, Senator Whish-Wilson, for your acknowledgment of the work of Mr Evans and some of the engagement undertaken in your remarks.

You asked a question in particular about the European Union's directive, Senator Whish-Wilson. I don't have details around that directive before me tonight. I am, in broad terms, aware of its existence and aspects of it and also that the nature of our parliament passing a law and its application across the country, if passed into law, is sometimes a little different to any new directive and the extent to which the 27 member states at various times or places pass those directive into law in their own different procedures and practices. I don't, as I say, have the details here, but, whilst opposing your amendments, I do acknowledge the good progress being made by many states and certainly commit that the Commonwealth, where we can, will continue to work collaboratively with states to help them on this journey.

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

Yes, I acknowledge the obviously different parliamentary structures. However, I think we all agree that Australia is a nation girt by sea and, very broadly, we are an ocean-loving community. People who live near the coast and even those who live inland love their oceans and take these issues very seriously. I would remind the Senate that these amendments are based on European legislation which was primarily aimed at helping to reduce the impact of marine plastic pollution, but it also is recognised by the recycling industry. In fact, one of APCO's voluntary targets is to phase out problematic single-use plastics. Why? Because they can't be recycled. There is talk of different techniques for potentially recycling these plastics, but everybody knows they're problematic. They cause problems in the sorting process and they go to landfill. They need to go. Everybody seems to recognise that we need to do something about this.

I was particularly interested in the government's response to this because, as I mentioned in my contribution to the second reading debate, the Prime Minister went to New York to address the UN General Assembly, where he said Australia was going to lead on this issue. Yet, what I see from the European Parliament is leadership on reducing single-use plastics. Minister, I noticed in your contribution and in many contributions by Liberal senators that you talk about plans, lots of plans, to complement what we have here today. The problem is twofold. We haven't seen the detail of your plans such as your plastics plan, and plans aren't legislated. They are not necessarily going to be enforceable. I think we all agree that they're policies that will live or die at the whim of a government, no matter who is in government.

The recycling industry and others are saying that they want to see legislative certainty. They want us to get the settings right. They need that certainty to invest, to move us to a circular economy, to move us out of the waste crisis. Of course, those many millions of Australians who care about the impact of marine debris and marine plastic pollution on our marine life want to see this done. Minister, why haven't you released your plastics plan? When will you release your plastics plan and will there be a comprehensive strategy in your plastics plan to phase out problematic single-use plastics?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note Senator Whish-Wilson's remarks in relation to the Prime Minister's commitments to leadership in this space and his references to plans versus action. In response to that, I would point out that, at the time the Prime Minister made those remarks, he had a plan to ban the export of waste. Tonight the parliament is considering legislation that gives effect to that plan, and so I would contend that leadership is clearly being displayed in implementing and working towards the plans that our government has developed to be world-leading in terms of restricting the export of waste. I also note that, in this sense, commensurate with our federation and consistent with it, we as a national government have taken leadership in the areas of our obvious responsibility—that is, how we engage with the rest of the world—and we have said very clearly that the exporting of waste is not something that Australia should do. It's inconsistent with the commitments that we think we make to the rest of the world, and particularly to our region, and that's why we as a national government are applying the ban and the commensurate steps to be able to deal with the flow-on impacts of that.

The states and territories historically have had lead responsibility in relation to some of the matters that your amendments touch on, and it is part of the reason why we think that it's appropriate to continue to back and encourage their leadership—to support that, hopefully, to a point of consistency across a large range of areas. It is about supporting their autonomy in a federation and also encouraging that leadership.

The national plastics plan is, as I say, being informed by the ideas and suggestions raised at the National Plastics Summit in March and is now moving into the next stage, which is particularly around cooperation and collaboration with industry and the states and territories. I'm advised that consultation around the draft plan will be able to commence around Q1 next year or thereabouts and that we should be in a strong position to then be able to progress the implementation of that, just as right now we are implementing the waste export ban that we had previously announced.

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

As someone who does care deeply about this issue and has genuinely campaigned to reduce plastic pollution in oceans for nearly 15 years in and out of this place, I can tell you it was absolutely clear the Prime Minister first said in a press conference in Sydney that his daughter had asked him to take on this issue, because schoolkids, children, care about this. They wanted him to act. He very clearly said at the UN that he would address the issue of plastic pollution in the ocean. I ask any minister to tell me how this legislation tonight reduces plastic pollution in the ocean. I'm not being facetious or not genuine in any way about what I'm saying, but a waste export ban bans the export of waste, and the Greens support that. I like the idea that we can deal with this issue ourselves in this country; we shouldn't be sending low-grade waste, particularly if it's contaminated, to where it's out of mind, out of sight. I like the idea, but how are these bills going to tackle the issue of marine plastic pollution? They exclude plastic packaging, and I would say they deliberately exclude plastic packaging.

I do recognise what you said in your contribution, Minister—that APCO are going to seek to apply to become an accredited product stewardship scheme under the act, once the bills pass. That's great; I'll talk to Minister Evans about that. It was raised in the Senate inquiries, and I was glad that APCO said they were agnostic about that. I was glad when the Food and Grocery Council said that they would support that. So it's great that they're going to become an accredited product stewardship scheme, but it's voluntary. I don't need to remind the Senate of the fact that APCO have never met their targets; they've always fallen way short under the NEPM—under that alternative structure.

I once again tonight recognise that I do believe APCO are doing things differently. They are genuinely saying that they're pulling their socks up, but the problem is the recycling industry just don't agree with that. They have seen this problem going on for too long, and they want it addressed. Where does a ban on exports of plastic waste intersect with acting on plastic pollution in the ocean? It could actually make plastic pollution worse. If we go down the road, as outlined in Senator Hanson-Young's second reader amendment, to just burning this stuff for energy, do you know what that's going to do?

Let's put aside all the arguments for and against incineration of plastic—the arguments around efficiency, toxic emissions and CO2. The problem is that, if you continue to go down this road of the lowest common denominator—and, on the waste hierarchy, waste to energy is just slightly above waste going to landfill—you are going to produce more plastic and consume more plastic.

We know that plastic consumption, especially single-use plastic, is highly correlated with litter. That's the problem we have got with our oceans. Some of the plastics in our oceans come from maritime sources but the majority come from land based sources—from rivers, beaches, parks, landfill and a whole range of sources. If we don't change the way we consume and the way we produce and if we don't redesign for a circular economy then we're never going to solve this problem. This waste ban could be even worse if we don't have the architecture in place.

I argue that a ban on the most dangerous single-use plastics, which already have alternatives and which the Australian people want to see, is very sensible. Either way we're giving everyone three years to work with the states to go through that process, which I agree is very important. Senator McAllister raised it. Yes, we need to work with the states. Western Australia even said in their statement that they want to see federal leadership on this. We're all heading in the same direction. Here's an opportunity tonight to legislate that.

We've got three years to work through it. We'll at least have given the Australian people some certainty that this is going to happen. The federal government has shown leadership on what I argue—putting climate change aside—is the biggest pollution issue on this planet. We all have to play our part. We all have to do our bit. Plastic is through the oceans. It's a scourge. There's a toxic tide of this stuff. It's all through our food chain. It's through everything.

We have to start acting right now. Tonight the chamber has a chance to do that. I urge all senators to support these amendments. You won't be surprised to know that, if we don't successfully get these amendments up tonight, we won't be giving up, because I don't think the Australian people would find that acceptable. Minister, you seem to be not in a position to provide any detail around your plastics plan, but I greatly anticipate its release. I hope you have some very detailed and comprehensive strategies for phasing out single-use plastics. We'll continue the debate after that. I commend these amendments to the chamber.

Kimberley Kitching (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Government Accountability) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 1030 revised be agreed to.

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

by leave—In respect of the Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill 2020, I move Australian Greens amendments (1) to (11) on sheet 1134 together:

(1) Clause 5, page 4 (line 31), at the end of the paragraph beginning "The third regime", add "As part of that regime, specific provision is made for a mandatory product stewardship scheme for packaging and plastics."

(2) Clause 10, page 7 (line 3) to page 12 (line 4), insert:

annual turnover, of a packaging and plastics scheme member: see subsection 94G(5).

container includes (without limitation) any cup, drinkware, pack, carton, box, tin, packet, bag, pouch, tube or other container.

filter tip of a cigarette has the same meaning as in the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011.

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).

packaging and plastics scheme: see subsection 94A(1).

packaging and plastics scheme member: see section 94B.

packaging and plastics targets: see subsection 94A(2).

reportable financial year, for a packaging and plastics scheme member: see subsection 94G(3).

sanitary products has the meaning prescribed by the rules.

scheme product: a scheme product is one of the following:

(a) packaging;

(b) a product made of, or containing, plastic if the product is within the following classes of products:

(i) balloons;

(ii) sanitary products;

(iii) wet wipes;

(iv) filter tips of cigarettes;

(v) products specified in rules made for the purposes of this subparagraph;

(c) a product made of, or containing, plastic if the product consists of microbeads;

(d) a product made of, or containing, oxo-degradable plastic.

scheme requirement means a requirement specified in rules made for the purposes of subsection 94C(1).

wet wipes has the meaning prescribed by the rules.

(3) Clause 66, page 67 (after line 13), after the paragraph beginning "These requirements might", insert:

The mandatory product stewardship regime also provides for a specific scheme for packaging and plastics, which includes setting packaging and plastics targets and requirements for packaging and plastics scheme products.

(4) Page 100 (after line 16), after Part 5, insert:

P art 5A—Mandatory product stewardship—packaging and plastics scheme

Division 1—Establishment and membership of the packaging and plastics scheme

94A Packaging and plastics scheme

(1) This Part establishes a scheme (the packaging and plastics scheme) that is directed towards achieving the packaging and plastics targets by doing the following:

(a) establishing scheme requirements in relation to packaging (see Division 2);

(b) monitoring packaging and plastics scheme members (see sections 94G and 94H);

(c) directing a packaging and plastics scheme member to take, or not to take, certain actions (see sections 94J and 94K).

(2) The packaging and plastics targets are the following targets:

(a) all packaging used in Australia will be reusable, recyclable or compostable by 2025;

(b) 70% of all packaging used in Australia will be recycled or composted by 2025;

(c) 70% of all plastic packaging used in Australia will be recycled or composted by 2025;

(d) all packaging used in Australia will include, on average, 50% recycled content by 2025.

94B Membership of the packaging and plastics scheme

A person is a packaging and plastics scheme member of the packaging and plastics scheme if:

(a) the person is:

(i) a constitutional corporation; or

(ii) a body corporate that is incorporated in a Territory; and

(b) the person manufactures, imports, distributes or uses packaging for commercial purposes.

Division 2—Scheme requirements

94C Scheme requirements

(1) The rules may require one or more specified persons to take, or not to take, specified action in relation to a specified scheme product.

Note: For specification by class, see subsection 13(3) of the Legislation Act 2003.

(2) The action must relate to the objects of this Act.

Note: For limitations on the power to make rules for the purposes of this Part, see sections 94D (Matters the Minister must be satisfied of before scheme requirements are made) and 94E (scheme requirements—constitutional connection).

(3) Without limiting subsection (1), rules made for the purposes of that subsection in relation to a scheme product may do any or all of the following:

(a) prohibit (either absolutely or subject to conditions), limit, restrict or otherwise affect the manufacture, import, export, distribution or use of a scheme product;

(b) prohibit (either absolutely or subject to conditions), limit or restrict substances from being contained in a scheme product;

(c) require a scheme product to be labelled or marked in accordance with the rules;

(d) specify requirements in relation to packaging a scheme product;

(e) specify requirements in relation to the durability, reparability and reusability of a scheme product;

(f) specify requirements in relation to communicating information, in accordance with the rules, in connection with distributing, reusing, recycling, recovering, treating or disposing of a scheme product;

(g) specify other requirements in relation to reusing, recycling, recovering, treating or disposing of a scheme product;

(h) provide for the Minister to exempt a specified person from a requirement specified in rules made for the purposes of that subsection.

(4) The paragraphs of subsection (3) do not limit each other.

94D Matters the Minister must be satisfied of before scheme requirements are made

Before the Minister makes rules that prescribe scheme requirements, the Minister must:

(a) be satisfied that the requirements will further the objects of this Act (see section 3); and

(b) be satisfied that the requirements are directed towards achieving the packaging and plasticstargets (if applicable); and

(c) have done the following:

(i) published a draft of the requirements and invited packaging and plasticsscheme members to make submissions on the draft;

(ii) considered any submissions that are received within the time limit specified by the Minister when the Minister published the draft.

94E Scheme requirements—constitutional connection

(1) One or more of the following must apply in relation to scheme requirements in relation to scheme products:

(a) the requirements are expressed only to apply in relation to action taken, or not taken, by a constitutional corporation;

(b) the requirements are expressed only to apply in relation to the taking of action in the course of constitutional trade or commerce;

(c) the requirements are expressed only to apply in relation to an action taken, or not taken, in a Territory;

(d) the requirements are appropriate and adapted to give effect to Australia's obligations under an agreement with one or more other countries.

(2) The scheme requirements in relation to scheme products must:

(a) specify whether they are made in accordance with paragraph (1)(a), (b), (c) or (d); and

(b) if they are made in accordance with paragraph (1)(d)—identify the agreement referred to in that paragraph.

94F Compliance with scheme requirements

(1) A person contravenes this subsection if:

(a) the person is subject to a scheme requirement; and

(b) the person engages in conduct; and

(c) the conduct contravenes the requirement.

Fault -based offence

(2) A person commits an offence if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years or 120 penalty units, or both.

Strict liability

(3) A person commits an offence of strict liability if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Penalty: 60 penalty units.

Civil penalty provision

(4) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Civil penalty: 240 penalty units.

Division 3—Monitoring of, and issuing directions to, packaging and plastics scheme members

94G Report from certain packaging and plastics scheme members

(1) A packaging and plastics scheme member must provide a written report in accordance with subsection (2) to the Minister if the member has had a reportable financial year.

Civil penalty: 1200 penalty units.

(2) The report must:

(a) be in the approved form; and

(b) be provided within 2 months after the end of the reportable financial year to which the report relates; and

(c) set out:

(i) the actions taken, or not taken, by the member to help achieve the packaging and plastics targets during the reportable financial year; and

(ii) the actions the member will take to help achieve those targets; and

(d) include information about the actions taken, or not taken, by the member in compliance with any scheme requirements; and

(e) include any matters specified in rules made for the purposes of this paragraph.

Reportable financial year

(3) A financial year is a reportable financial year for a packaging and plastics scheme member if the member had an annual turnover of $5 million or more in the previous financial year.

Publishing reports

(4) As soon as reasonably practicable after receiving a report from a packaging and plastics scheme member, the Minister must, in such manner as the Minister thinks appropriate, cause to be published or made available the following information from the report:

(a) the actions taken, or not taken, by the member to help achieve the packaging and plastics targets during the reportable financial year to which the report relates;

(b) the actions the member will take to help achieve those targets;

(c) the actions taken, or not taken, by the member in compliance with any scheme requirements;

(d) information relating to a matter specified for the purposes of paragraph (2)(e) that is specified in rules made for the purposes of this paragraph.

Annual turnover

(5) For the purposes of this section, the annual turnover of a packaging and plastics scheme member, during a financial year, is the sum of the values of all the supplies that the member, and any body corporate related to the member, have made, or are likely to make, during that year, other than the following supplies:

(a) supplies made from any of those bodies corporate (including the member) to any other of those bodies corporate;

(b) supplies that are input taxed;

(c) supplies that are not for consideration (and are not taxable supplies under section 72-5 of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999);

(d) supplies that are not made in connection with an enterprise that the member carries on.

(6) Expressions used in subsection (5) that are also used in the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 have the same meaning in that subsection as they have in that Act.

(7) The question whether 2 bodies corporate are related to each other is to be determined for the purposes of this section in the same way as for the purposes of the Corporations Act 2001.

94H Requests for information from packaging and plastics scheme members

(1) The Minister may, in writing, request a packaging and plastics scheme member to give the Minister information relating to the actions taken, or not taken, by the member towards achieving the packaging and plastics targets within a period specified in the request.

(2) If a packaging and plastics scheme member receives a request from the Minister under subsection (1), the member must provide the information requested within the period specified in the request.

Civil penalty: 1200 penalty units.

94J Minister may give directions to packaging and plastics scheme members

(1) This section applies if:

(a) the Minister has received:

(i) a report from a packaging and plastics scheme member under section 94G; or

(ii) information from such a member as requested by the Minister under section 94H; and

(b) the Minister is reasonably satisfied, on the basis of the report or information, that the actions taken, or not taken, by the member are not sufficient in helping to achieve the packaging and plastics targets.

(2) The Minister may, in writing, direct the member to take, or not to take, actions specified in the direction.

(3) A direction under subsection (2) is not a legislative instrument.

Notifying packaging and plastics scheme member of proposed direction

(4) Before giving a direction, the Minister must give the member written notice that the Minister is proposing to give the member the direction.

(5) The notice to the member must:

(a) set out the reasons the Minister is proposing to give the direction; and

(b) invite the member to respond, in writing, to the notice within a period specified in the notice.

(6) The Minister must consider any response given to the Minister within the specified period.

94K Packaging and plastics scheme member must comply with directions

(1) A packaging and plastics scheme member who is given a direction under subsection 94J(2) must comply with the direction.

Fault -based offence

(2) A packaging and plastics scheme member commits an offence if:

(a) the member is given a direction under subsection 94J(2); and

(b) the member engages in conduct; and

(c) the conduct contravenes the direction.

Penalty: 150 penalty units.

Civil penalty provision

(3) A packaging and plastics scheme member is liable to a civil penalty if the member contravenes subsection (1).

Civil penalty: 300 penalty units.

(5) Clause 102, page 110 (after line 6), after paragraph (1)(q), insert:

(qa) subsection 94F(3);

(qb) subsection 94G(1);

(qc) subsection 94H(2);

(qd) subsection 94K(3);

(6) Clause 106, page 115 (after table item 7), insert:

(7) Clause 109, page 119 (line 30), at the end of subclause (1), add:

; or (f) persons required by rules made for the purposes of subsection 94C(1) to take, or not to take, specified action in relation to a specified scheme product.

(8) Clause 109, page 120 (after line 15), after paragraph (2)(e), insert:

(ea) for an audit mentioned in paragraph (1)(f)—whether the person is taking, or is likely to take, the specified action in relation to the product;

(9) Clause 114, page 123 (after line 15), after paragraph (e), insert:

(ea) for an audit in relation to a person required by the rules made for the purposes of subsection 94C(1) to take, or not to take, specified action—the person;

(10) Clause 142, page 146 (after line 15), after paragraph (1)(g), insert:

(ga) persons who are required to take, or not to take, specified action in relation to scheme products under rules made for the purposes of section 94C;

(11) Clause 143, page 148 (after line 16), after paragraph (1)(e), insert:

(ea) requirements made under rules made for the purposes of subsection 94C(1) (packaging and plastics scheme requirements); or

This is the second group of substantive amendments I'll move tonight, following the ones we've just dealt with, which were for a ban on single-use plastics. I'm very sad that wasn't supported by the Senate tonight, but we won't be giving up. I would also mention again to the Senate that we've pulled an amendment on sheet 1029. That will not be moved tonight. That's off the menu. The reason we've pulled it is that we had some very constructive discussions with senators from Labor and other parties.

What we're doing in these amendments is very simple and straightforward. APCO, the Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation, are very confident they're going to meet the targets of their voluntary schemes. They've provided that evidence to two Senate inquiries. Their key stakeholders, the Food and Grocery Council, said they were going to meet their targets, Woolworths said they were going to meet their targets and Amcor said they were going to meet their targets. They're very confident. So we said: 'Great. If you can talk the talk then you won't mind walking the walk.' Tonight we're simply going to take what's already in existence and mandate by 2025 targets that are currently voluntary, so that when you walk into a supermarket 100 per cent of all packaging will be either recyclable or compostable, and 30 per cent of that packaging will be made from recycled product.

Of course, this is absolutely critical to the recycling industry in Australia. If they had confidence that APCO were going to meet their targets we wouldn't need a mandatory product stewardship scheme as is before the chamber tonight. That allows them to invest, increase their recyclate—take plastics as an example—and know there will be a readily available market for that plastic because, in law in this country, 30 per cent of that packaging is going to have to be made from already recycled material. That's very important to the waste management associations. Their evidence was very clear. Rose Reid and Gayle Sloan spoke at two Senate inquiries and were very up-front that they wanted a mandatory product stewardship scheme. In other words, they wanted the policy certainty that their industry could invest the money and get on with the job. And that means Australian jobs. It means tens of thousands of Australian jobs.

Senators don't necessarily know how potentially jobs-rich the recycling industry is. In a recent independent report on the recycling industry it was very clear that even just better washing of recycled materials could lead to 20,000 new jobs in this country. The report was from a technology centre in engineering excellence in Sydney. They were looking at the processes necessary to re-engineer products. That report is the only independent assessment of the state of recycling in Australia and of how we can build a circular economy. They're clearly saying that the recycling industry doesn't have policy certainty, and they outline that as one of the key problems with this government's approach. By the way, they're very complimentary of the government's approach in other regards. But they said that their feedback, from speaking to stakeholders, was very clearly that they didn't have the necessary confidence to invest. The recycling industry, across the board, doesn't believe that we have the policy settings right in this legislation, but they do support a mandatory product stewardship scheme for plastic packaging. Remember, they already employ 60,000 Australians, and they're the ones saying there are tens of thousands of new jobs if we get on with building a circular economy, fixing the waste process and looking after the planet.

I will just reiterate to senators that it's not only these key companies. I was on a fantastic hook-up that was organised by Plastic Oceans with the CEO of Amcor and other stakeholders. The CEO of Amcor, which is the second-biggest packaging company behind Visy, said on the call, and I've got the transcripts, that he supported mandatory product stewardship schemes—not just product stewardship schemes; he used the words 'mandatory product stewardship schemes'. I sometimes wonder why the government just won't do this—why they won't give the recycling industry, local governments, community groups and environment groups the certainty they need that there will finally be a policy framework so we can meet our targets. No more uncertainty—let's get on with it.

Lastly, Woolworths said in their submission—and they said it while giving evidence, because I asked them very specifically—that there's no difference to their costs in meeting a mandatory scheme versus a voluntary scheme. Because they are taking it so seriously and are getting on with it—they understand this is a significant matter of public interest—it isn't going to cost them any more to have a mandatory scheme. So, in fact, there is no basis at all to this idea that somehow mandating voluntary targets are going to cost businesses more money. There are no prescriptions here about exactly how industry should meet the targets. The Senate, in this legislation, is not saying to industry: 'Here are your targets. This is how you're going to meet them.' It's saying, 'You've got voluntary targets, great. You love them and are talking them up. You don't mind if we put them in law. It's up to you how you meet them. Go away and do it. Fantastic.' We could breathe easy, knowing that, by 2025, we would have finally got on with the job of rebuilding the recycling industry, have a proper circular economy and actually be protecting our planet. That's what this is about. It's a win-win for everyone. The only group, as I said, who have opposed it seem to be a couple of the bigger packaging companies. So I really don't understand why we wouldn't support this tonight.

I'll go through some detail in my last 2½ minutes or so. This, essentially, asks businesses with a turnover of over $5 million to report. No small businesses in the packaging industry will be captured. There are not many small businesses in the packaging industry as it is. There are plenty, by the way, in the recycling industry that want these amendments. Packaging companies with a turnover under $5 million don't have to report to the minister. The minister, when he receives reports for those businesses with turnovers of over $5 million, can look at them. If he sees that there's a problem with them meeting their targets, he can then ask for a 'please explain'. He can then go to the process of providing a direction. If they don't comply with that direction, there's still discretion at that point as to whether the minister will actually put in place the penalties, or enact the penalties, which are in this legislation.

This is based on the product stewardship scheme that already exists. There's no reinventing of the wheel here. These are very simple but extremely important amendments. If we amend this tonight, and it goes to the House, I would ask the government to consider that we've all done a good job here. We've all done our bit to try and solve the waste crisis, we've all done our bit to create Australian jobs in the recycling industry and we've all done a solid for the oceans. And the Australian people expect that. They're listening and watching tonight. I've never seen an environmental issue as big as plastic in the oceans. It cuts across everything. No-one likes it—it doesn't matter who they are—but everybody wants to do something about it. This one's very simple. I would urge senators to support these amendments. Please, let's hold the packaging industry to account; let's take what they've said they're going to do anyway, put it into law and therefore give the recycling industry the certainty they need to invest in a circular economy.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor supports these amendments. In reflecting on the significance of the proposal before us, it just so happens that I've had a long, professional involvement with the waste and recycling sector. Quite a few years ago, I had the good fortune to work for the New South Wales EPA, where there were some very creative and thoughtful policymakers. It has been a long-held objective to actually get packaging products working in the circular economy. That has been on the agenda for many, many years. It's a decadal project. Of course, when Labor is in government, it's a project that we are keen to pursue.

We have a very strong record on effective reform in the product stewardship space. In government, we delivered the Product Stewardship Act, and these bills continue that trajectory. Labor established the first co-regulatory scheme for computers and televisions, which is a scheme that remains very successful today. (Quorum formed)

I was speaking about Labor's support for the Greens amendments before I was interrupted by a senator who called attention to the state of the chamber. I was saying that we have concerns about the lack of progress being made under the voluntary plastic packaging targets for 2025. We agree that the government's overwhelmingly, or perhaps underwhelmingly, hands-off, voluntary approach has not been effective to date. Only 16 per cent of plastic packaging used in Australia is then recycled. The government has pledged a rate of 70 per cent by 2025. How can we possibly be satisfied that this will happen if we don't change the regulatory framework that has so far and for so long allowed the recycling rates of plastics to remain appallingly low?

So, in line with the views of the waste and recycling industry, we support a stronger approach, one that would see improved recycling outcomes for packaging by ensuring that the agreed Australian Packaging Covenant targets, which are already in the National Waste Policy Action Plan, have a mechanism in place through which they can be achieved.

It's worth noting, as I did in the second reading debate, that the forthcoming ban on the export of plastic waste will not naturally result in a serious lift in recycling and remanufacturing unless there is greater producer responsibility with respect to design for recycling and reuse, and a commitment to the incorporation of recycled content, and that is what the scheme would achieve. This is critical to realising not only the environmental outcomes that we're looking for but also the new jobs and the economic activity that would come through establishing a proper recycling industry.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government doesn't support these amendments. There are a number of existing processes that are occurring at present, and we think it would be prudent to enable those processes to run and assess progress at a future point, rather than impose another process on or expectation of industry. Some of the steps from industry at present in relation to packaging and some of the regulatory frameworks that already exist at the state and indeed Commonwealth levels are seeing real progress, and we're concerned that another layer will not necessarily be helpful at this point in time. We see that the APCO are working to implement the 2025 national packaging targets—as acknowledged, I think, by Senator Whish-Wilson—which will see 70 per cent of plastic packaging being recycled or composted by 2025, and working to gain government accreditation for their packaging product stewardship scheme.

The government has already put in place a legislative framework focused on packaging via the National Environment Protection (Used Packaging Materials) Measure 2011, which I understand will be reviewed over the next 12 months, providing further opportunity. We have of course already discussed the role of the states and territories in phasing out problematic plastics, and the Commonwealth's willingness to play a supportive and coordinating role in that regard—as we've discussed the role that the national plastics plan will play in the development of various measures and initiatives to reduce plastic pollution at every stage of the plastic life cycle.

The government is also concerned, at this rather challenging economic time—coming out of recession—that the additional red-tape requirements for or the costs that could accrue to some 26,000 Australian businesses might not be helpful. It is better to push and encourage the types of processes underway to be fully implemented than for iconic local food-manufacturing and food-processing businesses like Bundaberg, Coopers Brewery or Beechworth Honey potentially to face additional cost pressures.

So at this stage the government is not inclined to support these Greens amendments but certainly, through the different steps that are underway, expects to be held to account in relation to seeing a continuing decline in the use of single-use plastics and greater responsibility in the management of plastics. I note Senator Whish-Wilson's opening remarks and I acknowledge he is nothing but persistent in relation to such matters, so I anticipate fully that, as we work through the implementation and development of that national plastics plan, we will certainly face further engagement and scrutiny from the Greens on those matters, and we welcome the opportunity to be able to outline the next steps in the progress that will be being made.

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

I've just got one word for this notion that somehow this is going to add an extra process or cost to what's already in existence. I'm going to choose this word very carefully: bunkum. Okay? Baloney—okay, two words. We went through this ad nauseam in the inquiry. We are simply taking the existing voluntary process—no changes to that—and saying, 'Keep going, but we're going to mandate your targets.' That's it.

There are no additional processes for business and no additional costs. They admitted that in a Senate inquiry. They're doing this anyway. Senator Birmingham said in his last contribution that APCO, the Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation, are applying to become a voluntary accredited product stewardship scheme under the act. They are going through this anyway. There are no additional costs. Let me tell you what there are: there are penalties if they don't meet their targets in 2025 if the minister at the time chooses to go down that road. But the incentive is there, and it's very clear. The Australian people and the recycling industry expect you to meet your targets this time.

Just a quick reminder: in 2005, the previous iteration of the Packaging Covenant set themselves a five-year target for 2010 of 30 per cent of all plastic materials being recycled—30 per cent of all packaging. As Senator McAllister said in her contribution, in 2020 it's 16 per cent, only about half of their 2010 target. While I accept APCO are a different iteration and a different group now and they're getting on with it, it's not acceptable to the recycling industry.

If we want the jobs and we want the investment, we really need to put aside this fear campaign about extra costs. There won't be any. But there will be consequences if the industry are greenwashing and full of spin and no-one's going to be there to hold them to account. APCO and the packaging industry have never been penalised for their dismal failure—by the way, a dismal failure which APCO themselves were open and honest about in the Senate inquiries that talked about this. APCO's CEO was very clear that they had failed. There was no doubt about that. They said, 'Trust us; we're different.' I'm not going to criticise them at this point, but I can tell you the stakeholders in the recycling industry aren't confident that that is the case. They want the certainty, and they want it tonight.

So I just would say to senators once again: we have the opportunity here to put up a very significant amendment that is actually very simple and very effective and will go a long way to helping fix the waste crisis. It is one of the biggest employers in this country: 60,000 Australians for one industry. That could be a whole lot larger. It's what they want. Let's give it to them. Let's get out of the waste crisis. Let's build a circular economy where everything has a value, everything's set up for the end of its life and everything's designed. Enormous innovation potential could be going into this, with research and development and green jobs. Let's vote on it tonight. I commend these amendments to the Senate.

The CHAIR: The question is that amendments (1) to (11) on sheet 1134, moved by Senator Whish-Wilson, be agreed to.

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

Can I say how disappointed I am—

Hon. Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

Yeah, yeah!

An honourable senator: Call a quorum!

No, I don't need to call a quorum, but I'm really disappointed that we had a chance—I want to thank the Labor Party for supporting the amendment. Senator McAllister said that they understand how important jobs are, especially in rural and regional Australia. The recycling industry is a huge employer. It's a shame that One Nation don't know the value of jobs in rural and regional areas. They have turned their backs again on the battlers in these areas and on the industries that are going to employ them. Recycling in many cases will employ low-skilled labour, but there's huge demand for low-skilled labour. Tonight they've supported the big packaging companies—some of the wealthiest companies on the planet and some of the biggest donors to the Liberal Party—and turned their back on holding big business to account after 30 years of failure and inaction. I've got to say they're as mad as meat axes, these people. You can't give them any logic, any sensibility—it doesn't matter what you do. This country is being held to ransom by One Nation. Let me make that very clear here tonight.

I have a number of other amendments that I would like to move. The first are to establish a product stewardship scheme advisory group. I seek leave to move Greens amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 1052 revised together.

Leave granted.

In respect of the Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill, I move:

(1) Clause 10, page 7 (after line 9), after the definition of administrator, insert:

Advisory Group means the Product Stewardship Advisory Group established by subsection 68A(1).

(2) Clause 67, page 70 (before line 1), before subclause (4) (before the heading), insert:

Matters to be considered—advice from Product Stewardship Advisory Group

(3B) In preparing a Minister's priority list, the Minister must have regard to any advice provided to the Minister by the Advisory Group.

(3) Page 71 (after line 3), at the end of Part 2, add:

68A 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 67(1) (Minister's priority list); 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.

(4) Page 185 (after line 4), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 1—Product Stewardship Advisory Group

Note: See subsection 68A(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 the instrument of appointment. The period must not exceed 3 years.

Note: For reappointment, see section 33AA of 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).

Note: For rules that apply to acting appointments, see sections 33AB and 33A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.

4 Remuneration

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

(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 subclause.

(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 the member's 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

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

(a) for misbehaviour; or

(b) if the member is unable to perform the duties of the member's office because of physical or mental incapacity.

(2) The Minister may terminate the appointment of an Advisory Group member if:

(a) 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 the member's creditors; or

(iv) makes an assignment of the member's remuneration for the benefit of the member's creditors; or

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

(c) 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 conditions

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.

Under the original legislation in 2011, when the Product Stewardship Act went through, it was considered important to have a group of eminent experts and very important stakeholders who could advise the government around its product stewardship schemes and its Product Stewardship Act. While I accept the government has a very good initiative in place with the Product Stewardship Centre of Excellence, which is an initiative by the government, which will look at how to constantly improve product stewardship schemes and how to make them work. It doesn't matter what kind of waste product or waste stream we're talking about, it could be computers, e-waste—Mr Temporary Chair, could you perhaps ask some of the senators to leave the chamber?

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will ask those senators who are not involved in the debate to please leave the chamber. Take your conversations outside. Senator Whish-Wilson, you have the call.

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

Thank you. It doesn't matter what waste stream we're talking about. It could be solar panels in the future. It could be wind turbines, as Senator Roberts raised in his fantastic contribution. It doesn't matter what kind of product stewardship scheme we're talking about, the centre of excellence, I do believe from what I've heard from speaking to very informed and experienced stakeholders, is a good initiative, and I applaud the government for that. However, the advisory group is independent. It has key and eminent stakeholders. And, while this Senate removed the advisory group from the Product Stewardship Act as part of this government's war on green and red tape, I stood up in the Senate chamber—in fact, it was two Christmases ago, I remember, exactly this week, the night of our Christmas party—and I argued: 'We shouldn't remove this advisory group. They play a very important role in working with government and making sure that product stewardship schemes are independently assessed and that they have that kind of external advice which is important to the department.' So I commend these amendments to the Senate.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek just to make a response to Senator Whish-Wilson's comments. Senator Whish-Wilson approached me this morning to discuss his amendments, especially on sheet 1134. I invited him into my office straightaway. We made arrangements. We spent a good deal of time listening to him, and there is some merit in some of the details in his amendments. We also then took a responsible position and invited the government to respond, and we asked them questions. We genuinely analysed and considered and reviewed both positions. In the end, we believe that the Greens amendments will add additional burdens that are not worthy of consideration because they will put an additional 26,000 businesses under enormous paperwork loads, and some retailers, small business people, are already burning the midnight oil. That will hurt small companies and hurt retailers. We also learned that there is a consultative process underway with the government involving state governments and other entities in this country. We will wait for that happen and let it happen properly, and then we'll assess that on its merits. We will let that consultative process continue.

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

I have to respond to that. I won't disclose the details of our conversation this morning. May I say One Nation have had these amendments for nearly two months. We've been speaking to their office for many, many weeks, as have a number of stakeholders, speaking to their excellent advisers, who I believe supported these amendments. I don't know what your reason was, Senator Roberts, for turning your back on the recycling industry tonight and the 60,000 Australians it employs, but I hope they note your excuse that you've just given for not supporting this, that somehow you've bought the packaging industry lies and disinformation that this is going to add extra costs to business. I was very clear that industry themselves said it wouldn't. It excludes small businesses, and I went through that with you ad nauseam this morning, Senator Roberts. It's clear you've made up your mind: you've chosen to side with the big packaging companies and with the government. You've turned your back on it, and now you're trying to make excuses and work your way through. There is no evidence at all that this is going to add to the costs. We're taking an existing process and mandating it—that's all we're doing. I don't know how many times I have to explain it to you, but I'm sure no matter how many times I do it's not going to sink in. That's all I have to say.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Our advisers were initially recommending to oppose these amendments. We listened to Senator Whish-Wilson. They thought there was some merit in continuing the discussion. We then invited the government, and they addressed Senator Whish-Wilson's positions. When we consult with people and when we want to influence people, when they disagree with us we don't get upset. We just accept that that they have a view and we respect that view. We know that small businesses will end up with huge, massive paperwork loads. We're not willing to have that. There are many other flaws in this. There are some points of merit, as I said, but, on balance, we are not going to support Senator Whish-Wilson's amendments. We just didn't.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I may bring us back to the question before the chair, I understand we are on the amendments sheet 1052, in which the Australian Greens are seeking to re-establish the Product Stewardship Advisory Group. The government's view is that this amendment is unnecessary and duplicative, in the sense that the government has already provided amendments to recognise the advisory role of the newly announced Product Stewardship Centre of Excellence. This Product Stewardship Centre of Excellence, supported with $1 million, will play a key role in driving Australia's circular economy towards an 80 per cent recovery rate across all waste streams by 2030. The new export body will provide mentoring and best-practice guidance to both new and expanding product stewardship schemes. I understand the centre of excellence will be housed or coordinated by the University of Technology Sydney, and clearly it will provide the type of independent, excellent advice that is appropriate in these circumstances.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll just give an indication of Labor's voting position on these amendments: we will be supporting these amendments. Certainly under the product stewardship arrangements that Labor put in place in 2011 there was an independent statutory body in the form of the Product Stewardship Advisory Group, and it was taken away by the Abbott government, which, not unlike this government, had a general aversion to independent advice and oversight. While Labor was successful in getting the government to strengthen consultation through amendments made in the other place—for example, by inserting a requirement that the minister must consult with states and territories and also with the soon-to-be-formed Product Stewardship Centre of Excellence—we consider that there is real merit in the proposal before us. There's little doubt that an independent statutory advisory group would be a better and stronger source of input and assessment.

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

Very quickly—I should have made myself more clear—I note that under the bill the minister still doesn't need to consult directly with stakeholders like, for example, environment groups or recycling groups. The word is very clearly 'may' consult. The consultation amendment is drafted so that we make it compulsory that the government seek that advice.

The CHAIR: The question is that Australian Greens amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 1052 revised be agreed to.

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

by leave—In respect of the Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill 2020, I move Greens amendments (1) to (10) on sheet 1032 revised together:

(1) Clause 10, page 7 (line 3) to page 12 (line 4), insert:

covered person, for financial contribution requirements under Part 5D of Chapter 3, has the meaning given by subsection 94T(2).

covered plastic: see subsection 94T(3).

financial contribution requirement means a requirement specified in rules made for the purposes of subsection 94T(1).

(2) Clause 66, page 67 (after line 13), after the paragraph beginning "These requirements might", insert:

The mandatory product stewardship regime also enables rules to be made to require certain persons to make financial contributions towards measures for dealing with particular classes of plastic products, such as raising awareness of appropriate ways of disposing of such plastics.

(3) Page 100 (after line 16), after Part 5, insert:

Part 5D—Mandatory product stewardship—financial contribution requirements for certain plastics

94T Financial contributions towards costs relating to certain plastics

(1) The rules may require one or more covered persons, or classes of covered person, to make a financial contribution of a specified amount towards one or more of the following:

(a) the cost of specified measures that raise awareness of appropriate ways of disposing of a specified covered plastic;

(b) the cost that disposing of a specified covered plastic imposes on specified waste management services;

(c) the cost related to cleaning up litter resulting from a specified covered plastic.

Note: For specification by class, see subsection 13(3) of the Legislation Act 2003.

(2) A person is a covered person if:

(a) the person is:

(i) a constitutional corporation; or

(ii) a body corporate that is incorporated in a Territory; and

(b) the person manufactures, imports, distributes or uses a covered plastic.

(3) A thing that is made of, or contains, plastic is a covered plastic if the thing falls into the following classes of things:

(a) beverage containers;

(b) food containers;

(c) packaging:

(i) made of flexible material; and

(ii) that is intended to be used to pack food;

(d) balloons;

(e) sanitary products, within the meaning prescribed by the rules;

(f) wet wipes, within the meaning prescribed by the rules;

(g) filter tips (within the meaning of the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011) of cigarettes;

(h) a class of things specified in rules made for the purposes of this paragraph.

(4) Rules made for the purposes of subsection (1) that require a person to make a financial contribution must not amount to taxation.

(5) For the purposes of paragraphs (3)(a) and (b), container includes (without limitation) any cup, drinkware, pack, carton, box, tin, packet, bag, pouch, tube or other container.

94U Compliance with financial contribution requirements

(1) A person contravenes this subsection if:

(a) the person is subject to a financial contribution requirement; and

(b) the person engages in conduct; and

(c) the conduct contravenes the requirement.

Fault -based offence

(2) A person commits an offence if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years or 120 penalty units, or both.

Strict liability

(3) A person commits an offence of strict liability if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Penalty: 60 penalty units.

Civil penalty provision

(4) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Civil penalty: 240 penalty units.

(4) Clause 102, page 110 (after line 6), after paragraph (1)(q), insert:

(qi) subsection 94U(3);

(5) Clause 106, page 115 (after table item 7), insert:

(6) Clause 109, page 119 (line 30), at the end of subclause (1), add:

; or (g) persons required by rules made for the purposes of subsection 94T(1) to make a financial contribution in relation to a covered plastic.

(7) Clause 109, page 120 (after line 15), after paragraph (2)(e), insert:

(eb) for an audit mentioned in paragraph (1)(g)—whether the person made the financial contribution in relation to the covered plastic;

(8) Clause 114, page 123 (after line 15), after paragraph (e), insert:

(eb) for an audit in relation to a person required by the rules made for the purposes of subsection 94T(1) to make a financial contribution in relation to a covered plastic—the person;

(9) Clause 142, page 146 (after line 15), after paragraph (1)(g), insert:

(gb) persons who are required to make financial contributions in relation to covered plastics under rules made for the purposes of section 94T;

(10) Clause 143, page 148 (after line 16), after paragraph (1)(e), insert:

(eb) requirements made under rules made for the purposes of subsection 94T(1) (financial contribution requirements for covered plastics); or

There is no need to talk to these amendments for too long. I might talk for a little while so that senators leave the chamber and then have to come back—I'm only kidding! It is Christmas after all, and we all need the exercise.

These amendments are simply about financial contributions. Everybody agrees we need better information, better labelling laws. The problem is: when you're talking about education programs, how do you fund them? These amendments are fairly straightforward. They require certain members of the Packaging Covenant, or potentially a new iteration if it falls under this legislation as a voluntary product stewardship scheme, to make financial contributions to help pay for raising that education and awareness. These amendments are fairly straightforward and I commend them to the Senate.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor opposes these amendments. We believe producers should be held responsible for ensuring that the products they manufacture can be recycled, and producers should be expected to shift towards circular and sustainable use of materials. That is how we will achieve better outcomes for waste and recycling, and that means better environmental outcomes, less resource depletion and new manufacturing opportunities. However, without any expert analysis of the impacts and the benefits for plans such as those proposed in these amendments, Labor can't support these amendments. It's not really clear that this is the best way of achieving the change that's intended, and there has not been sufficient engagement with producers and other stakeholders.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government also opposes these amendments. We'd rather see industry given the chance to deliver on its commitment to the national packaging targets and to establish a government accredited product stewardship scheme for packaging. We do not believe it's appropriate at this time to impose levies on industry as costs that would likely be passed on to consumers when there is a high degree of goodwill and activity seeking to achieve the outcomes already.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that amendments (1) to (10) on sheet 1032 revised be agreed to.

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

by leave—In respect of the Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill 2020, I move Greens amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 1031 revised together:

(1) Clause 10, page 9 (after line 13), after the definition of intellectual property rights, insert:

labelled plastic: see subsection 94Q(1).

(2) Clause 66, page 67 (after line 13), after the paragraph beginning "These requirements might", insert:

There are also specific requirements as part of the mandatory product stewardship regime in relation to labelling the packaging of certain plastic products, to alert consumers to the potential harm of the product to the environment or other prescribed matters.

(3) Page 100 (after line 16), after Part 5, insert:

Part 5C—Mandatory product stewardship—packaging of labelled plastics

94Q Packaging of labelled plastics

(1) This section applies in relation to a product (a labelled plastic) that is made of, or contains, plastic if:

(a) the product is a sanitary product, within the meaning prescribed by the rules; or

(b) the product is a wet wipe, within the meaning prescribed by the rules; or

(c) the product is a balloon; or

(d) the product is a filter tip (within the meaning of the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011) of a cigarette; or

(e) the product is specified in rules made for the purposes of this paragraph.

(2) On and after 1 January 2022, the packaging of a labelled plastic must state, in a prominent location on the packaging:

(a) that the product is harmful to the environment if the product is released or incorrectly disposed of; and

(b) any other matter specified in rules made for the purposes of this paragraph.

(3) For the purposes of this Part, 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).

94R Packaging of labelled plastics—constitutional corporations

(1) A person contravenes this subsection if:

(a) the person is a constitutional corporation; and

(b) the person distributes a labelled plastic for commercial purposes; and

(c) the packaging of the labelled plastic does not comply with subsection 94Q(2).

Fault -based offence

(2) A person commits an offence if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Penalty: 600 penalty units.

Strict liability

(3) A person commits an offence of strict liability if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Penalty: 300 penalty units.

Civil penalty provision

(4) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Civil penalty: 1,200 penalty units.

94S Packaging of labelled plastics—persons other than constitutional corporations

(1) A person contravenes this subsection if:

(a) the person distributes a labelled plastic:

(i) in the course of, or for the purposes of, constitutional trade or commerce; or

(ii) in a Territory for commercial purposes; or

(iii) on behalf of a constitutional corporation for commercial purposes; or

(iv) for the purposes of supplying goods to a constitutional corporation; and

(b) the packaging of the labelled plastic does not comply with subsection 94Q(2).

Fault -based offence

(2) A person commits an offence if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years or 120 penalty units, or both.

Strict liability

(3) A person commits an offence of strict liability if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Penalty: 60 penalty units.

Civil penalty provision

(4) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Civil penalty: 240 penalty units.

(4) Clause 102, page 110 (after line 6), after paragraph (1)(q), insert:

(qg) subsection 94R(3);

(qh) subsection 94S(3);

These amendments are essentially on stronger labelling. These amendments propose labelling requirements for certain plastic products to alert consumers to the potential harm of the product to the environment. These are required by January 2022—so in a couple of years time. The packaging of the following products must state that the product is harmful to the environment if released or incorrectly disposed of: sanitary products, wet wipes, balloons and cigarette filters.

In relation to the single-use plastics ban, the biggest criticism I got tonight for putting up the ban on single-use plastics—the amendments which, sadly, were voted down—was that it didn't go anywhere near far enough. This was from people that have been campaigning in this area for decades. For example, they wanted a ban on single-use plastics to include helium balloons. They wanted cigarette filters banned. For those people who don't know, cigarette filters are plastic. If you put them in water and you leave them for a few months and come back, you'll see the water is full of plastic filaments. Of course, cigarette butts are the most common item that we find on our beaches in Australia. They make their way into the water. It doesn't take them long to decompose, and then you have millions, if not billions, of pieces of microplastic in the ocean from cigarette filters.

Filters are something we would have loved to have banned, but we knew that was going to be very problematic. We wanted to stick to items that had readily available alternatives that people could use; that doesn't disadvantage business. But we did want to at least have stronger labelling that lets consumers know that when they buy balloons or cigarettes, these things, if not disposed of properly, will be extremely harmful in the ocean. While we've worked on balloon releases—we know that it's becoming very politically incorrect to release balloons at public events. Sadly, there are still balloons being released at some events, but most people understand now that they go straight into the ocean. Every balloon you saw in the old days at the MCG was going straight into Port Phillip Bay or even further in the ocean. At least we've cracked down on that.

This is the best we can do without going too far. That's not something you'd normally hear from me or from the Greens, but this is our version of compromising. I suppose what I'm saying to the Senate is: it's not a big deal but it's important, so please support it.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll indicate Labor's voting position. We oppose these amendments. When it comes to lifting waste and recycling, as I've made clear all through this evening, the current labelling regime falls a long way short of what's required. But this is a complex issue, and it can't be fixed by forcing plastic manufacturers to apply some form of warning message on their product that risks further complicating a current mess of labelling features. Poor product design—and it is about design—means that, for some packaging, only certain elements of the product are recyclable. That forces us to use very complicated labelling that makes it very difficult for consumers to understand what they are supposed to do with the product in their hand—a conversation I have with my family on a very regular basis. We would like to see a comprehensive review of label packaging. We think that's necessary to determine what kind of reform would be sensible and effective. We call on the government to undertake a full review of product labelling that would drive change through consumer choice and greater transparency, increase proper sorting and disposal, and allow responsible producers to be recognised for making sustainable product decisions.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government doesn't support these amendments either. Industry has delivered strong uptake of the Australasian Recycling Label. Over 400 APCO members are now committed to its use, and those numbers continue to grow. As I've noted before in this debate, industry has also delivered on phasing out microbeads, with 99.3 per cent of use now phased out. For these reasons we don't support these amendments by the Greens, which would apply regulation onto industry when, in fact, government working cooperatively with industry is already achieving significant outcomes.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that Greens amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 1031 revised be agreed to.

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

The next two amendments are, of course, very important. They relate to a priority list. Funnily enough, the aspects of this legislation that deal with the product stewardship scheme are very similar to the 2011 scheme that was brought in by Labor. There's a bit of fiddling around the edges and some rejigging. There's not a lot that is new there, but one thing that is new is a priority list. The minister can add a packaging stream, like plastic, to the priority list.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Whish-Wilson, could you indicate which amendments you wish to move.

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

by leave—In respect of the Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill 2020, I move Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1043 revised:

(1) Clause 67, page 68 (after line 21), after subclause (1), insert:

First priority list must include plastic packaging

(1A) The first Minister's priority list prepared after the commencement of this section must include plastic 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 plastic packaging.

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

(2) Clause 185, page 183 (line 10), omit "a review", substitute "an independent review".

These amendments put plastic packaging on the next priority list. So, once this legislation is passed tonight, the minister can go through a process where they can put any packaging stream on a priority list. When it's on a priority list, what is different about it is that the minister can name and shame an organisation, a company or a member of the Packaging Covenant for not meeting their targets. Right now, I'd rather see a mandatory scheme that provides penalties for businesses that don't meet targets. But this allows the minister to stand up in parliament, under quite restrictive conditions, may I say, and name and shame a business that doesn't do the right thing. There are a number of free riders in the packaging industry. That's why they've never come anywhere close to achieving their targets. There are a lot of businesses that actually need a bit of a gee-up. This allows the minister to put them on a priority list, which essentially puts them on notice.

It's pretty straightforward. We want to mandate tonight having plastic packaging put on that priority list. It's kind of a halfway house between a voluntary scheme and a mandatory scheme. It says, 'You're applying for voluntary product stewardship accreditation, but you're on the priority list now. You've got 12 months to show some progress; otherwise, the minister can go into the chamber and name the companies that are free-riding and causing problems.' I ask the Senate to support this simple, logical motion that helps to fix the problem.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor supports these amendments. In relation to amendment (1), we moved a similar amendment, in fact, in the other place. It's a shame that the government didn't support it over there and we hope that they will support it here. To give an example of how little has been achieved when it comes to waste outcomes for packaging, at present the recycling rate for plastic packaging is only 16 per cent. Without further regulatory action, it is pretty difficult to see how the government's target of 70 per cent by 2025 could possibly be achieved. We are a month away from it being 2021 and we should stop kidding ourselves about the lack of progress. Amendment (2) basically requires the statutory review of this act to be undertaken by an independent body rather than the department. This is very sensible. The statutory review of the Product Stewardship Act, which was due in 2016, wasn't delivered until this year. It's plain that we need an independent body to engage in this task.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Very briefly, the government does not support the amendments moved by the Greens in this regard. The minister has a priority list that provides industry and the community with a clear statement of expectations by the government. APCO have committed to seeking government accreditation for their packaging products stewardship scheme. The government believes that such processes should be allowed to run their course rather than imposing regulation on industry in addition to that which is already being pursued through these arrangements.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1043 be agreed to.

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

In respect of the Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill 2020, I move Australian Greens amendment (1) on sheet 1071:

(1) Clause 67, page 68 (line 27) to page 69 (line 6), omit subclause (2A), substitute:

(2A) In preparing a Minister's priority list, the Minister must consult with one or more persons or organisations, groups or authorities (as applicable) from each 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.

The Minister may also consult with any other person or organisation the Minister considers should be consulted.

The final Greens amendment tonight puts into law the compromise I mentioned earlier between having a mandatory product stewardship scheme, which the Senate has rejected tonight, and a voluntary scheme. This builds on what the government's put up—which I think is constructive—which is that we have a priority list that puts waste streams and their businesses on notice.

Progress reported.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Faruqi.

Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just rise to withdraw the word 'racist' from a statement I made earlier about the actions of Senator Abetz.