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

I reiterate that I moved my amendment on sheet 1071 last night. I will speak to it very briefly and concisely. A priority products list is in the legislation; it already exists. It gives a minister the ability to put on notice any waste stream under a product stewardship scheme by putting the waste stream on the product priority list. That gives that waste stream's association members 12 months to get their act together and, at the end of that 12 months, it gives the minister the discretion to come into parliament and name and shame businesses that are deliberately free-riding and not pulling their weight. This amendment isn't doing anything new except to take plastic packaging, which we know is going to be under a voluntary product stewardship scheme if APCO and the government are true to their word, and simply put it immediately onto the product priority list.

Australians are bitterly disappointed that last night the Senate didn't support a mandated product stewardship scheme that gave the packaging industry essentially five years to get their act together and meet their voluntary targets. This is a halfway house; it's not as strong as the Greens, Labor and other people in this chamber would have liked to see, but it at least gives the Australian people and the recycling industry some certainty that plastic packaging is going to fall under the scope of this legislation. At the moment, plastic packaging falls under the NEPM; it's not covered in this bill. We can't even talk about tackling marine plastic or building a better recycling industry in Australia and creating jobs, giving the recycling industry certainty, unless we give them something.

I implore senators to support this amendment. One Nation totally disgraced themselves yesterday. They have some kind of chance here to redress that and at least give the recycling industry in Australia and the Australian people something. I commend this amendment to the chamber.

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

Can I clarify which amendment we are dealing with? I thought Senator Whish-Wilson was speaking about the matters contemplated on sheet 1043. My understanding of the amendment on sheet 1071 is that it goes to consultation. I'm just clarifying, Senator Whish-Wilson, where we are up to.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm advised by the clerk that we are actually considering sheet 1071. I'll call you, Senator Whish-Wilson, if you need to say anything to make this clear to the chamber.

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

That is correct: it is the amendment on sheet 1071 and it does go to consultation. Currently, the minister 'may consult' with persons or organisations in relation to aspects of the bill—industry groups, consumer groups. We've moved as an amendment to the section that the minister 'must consult' with one or more persons, rather than 'may'. Sorry, I thought I'd clarified that last night. But we are about to vote on the amendment on sheet 1071.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Whish-Wilson, for the clarification.

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

I will indicate Labor's voting position on this. We do support this amendment. Waste management is a very complex issue. It affects consumers, industry and the environment, and government policymaking correspondently should be engaging with all of those sectors of our society and economy. We were very pleased to be able to secure amendments in the other place that required that the minister consult with states and territories and with the government's new Product Stewardship Centre of Excellence, as key stakeholders. We're happy to support the extension of this requirement to the other groups that are listed in this amendment.

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

The government doesn't support the amendment. We did move and cooperate with the opposition, as referenced by Senator McAllister, in the House to extend and strengthen consultation requirements in relation to the minister's priority list. Obviously, that is not an exhaustive outcome in terms of who could be consulted—and no doubt would be consulted, we believe—beyond those specified. It's appropriate to keep flexibility there. For example, in the case of local governments it may be that a large number need consulting on some measures, a smaller number on other measures, and ministers of the day ought to have the flexibility to get the best possible policy outcomes through consultation.

The CHAIR: The question is that the amendment on sheet 1071, moved by Senator Whish-Wilson, be agreed to.