|
representatives vote 2020-10-26#5
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2020-10-30 11:39:37
|
Title
Description
- The majority voted in favour of *disagreeing* with the [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2020-10-26.119.2) moved by the MP for Fremantle [Josh Wilson](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/fremantle/josh_wilson) (Labor), which means it failed.
- MP Wilson [explained that the amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2020-10-26.119.2):
- > *... picks up the broad question of whether the newly created minister's priority list will be effective in dealing with some of the most harmful and most disappointingly unrecycled types of waste. There's plenty of evidence that a listings mechanism, which encourages a voluntary response from an industry or group of producers, has been pretty ineffective to date. Packaging is a very good example of that. That's why this amendment proposes to put packaging back on the minister's priority list from the outset.*
- ### Motion text
- > *(1) Clause 67, page 67 (after line 21), after subclause (1), insert:*
- >
- >> *First priority list must cover packaging*
- >>
- >> *(1A) The Minister’s priority list that the Minister is required to publish under subsection (1) before the end of the financial year ending on 30 June 2021 must include 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 packaging.*
- >>
- >> *(1B) To avoid doubt, subsection (1A) does not prevent the Minister’s priority list from including products other than packaging.*
- >>
- >> *(1C) For the purposes of this section, 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).*
- ### What do these bills do?
- The [Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill 2020](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r6573) was introduced with several other related bills to establish a framework to:
- * *regulate the export of waste materials, in line with the agreement to ban the export of waste plastic, paper, glass and tyres by the Council of Australian Governments in 2020;*
- * *manage the environmental, health and safety impacts of products, in particular those impacts associated with the disposal of products; and*
- * *provide for voluntary, co-regulatory and mandatory product stewardship schemes.*
|
|
representatives vote 2020-10-26#5
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2020-10-30 11:35:37
|
Title
Bills — Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill 2020, Recycling and Waste Reduction (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2020, Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (General) Bill 2020, Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (Customs) Bill 2020, Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (Excise) Bill 2020; Consideration in Detail- Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill 2020 and others - Consideration in Detail - Packaging
Description
<p class="speaker">Josh Wilson</p><p>I move:</p><p class="italic">(1) Clause 67, page 67 (after line 21), after subclause (1), insert:</p>- The majority voted in favour of *disagreeing* with the [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2020-10-26.119.2) moved by the MP for Fremantle [Josh Wilson](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/fremantle/josh_wilson) (Labor), which means it failed.
- MP Wilson [explained that the amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2020-10-26.119.2):
- > *... picks up the broad question of whether the newly created minister's priority list will be effective in dealing with some of the most harmful and most disappointingly unrecycled types of waste. There's plenty of evidence that a listings mechanism, which encourages a voluntary response from an industry or group of producers, has been pretty ineffective to date. Packaging is a very good example of that. That's why this amendment proposes to put packaging back on the minister's priority list from the outset.*
- ### Motion text
- > *(1) Clause 67, page 67 (after line 21), after subclause (1), insert:*
- >
- >> *First priority list must cover packaging*
- >>
- >> *(1A) The Minister’s priority list that the Minister is required to publish under subsection (1) before the end of the financial year ending on 30 June 2021 must include 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 packaging.*
- >>
- >> *(1B) To avoid doubt, subsection (1A) does not prevent the Minister’s priority list from including products other than packaging.*
- >>
- >> *(1C) For the purposes of this section, 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).*
<p class="italic">  First priority list must cover packaging</p><p class="italic">  (1A) The Minister’s priority list that the Minister is required to publish under subsection (1) before the end of the financial year ending on 30 June 2021 must include 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 packaging.</p><p class="italic">  (1B) To avoid doubt, subsection (1A) does not prevent the Minister’s priority list from including products other than packaging.</p><p class="italic">  (1C) For the purposes of this section, packaging includes:</p><p class="italic">     (a) a container, wrapper, confining band or other thing in which a good is packed, or 2 or more goods are packed; and</p><p class="italic">     (b) anything around which a good is wound or wrapped, or 2 or more goods are wound or wrapped; and</p><p class="italic">     (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).</p><p>This amendment picks up the broad question of whether the newly created minister's priority list will be effective in dealing with some of the most harmful and most disappointingly unrecycled types of waste. There's plenty of evidence that a listings mechanism, which encourages a voluntary response from an industry or group of producers, has been pretty ineffective to date. Packaging is a very good example of that. That's why this amendment proposes to put packaging back on the minister's priority list from the outset.</p><p>While the Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation is a worthy initiative, and there's no doubt its targets are worthy, unfortunately so far APCO has not been a vehicle for significant change. So far we're not on track to achieve the key APCO targets which are, in effect, the agreed targets under the National Waste Policy Action Plan. These include the elimination of harmful and unnecessary plastic products by 2025. They include achieving 50 per cent of recycled content in packaging and a 70 per cent rate of plastic recycling all by 2025. At the moment, the rate of plastic recycling for packaging is only 16 per cent. In a few months, it will be 2021, and 2025 is not far away. We should stop kidding ourselves that we are making great progress towards the 2025 targets—we're not.</p><p>APCO is effectively a voluntary scheme. To the extent that it does involve some obligations, those are supposed to be enforced through the National Environment Protection Measures, the NEPM, but, to a large extent, that hasn't happened. As I observed in the second reading debate, it's a shame that the NEPM review couldn't be landed in advance of the reforms we're considering.</p><p>I accept there has been some positive movement in the last year or so. APCO has worked hard to increase its membership and the government has just announced that APCO will move towards accreditation of the existing voluntary scheme, but this is very belated progress, and it remains to be seen what it will achieve. For all of those reasons, this amendment would add packaging to the minister's priority list from the outset. If the new priority list will be an effective and genuine means of achieving change, as the assistant minister has just described, then why not get started on one of the biggest problem categories right now?</p><p>The minister will still get to set the required actions and the timetable, as has been described. If the government is confident about the positive change that's in prospect through these mechanisms, then why hesitate to add packaging to the list? Australia is a sanctuary. Our environment is precious. When it comes to waste and recycling, we haven't done tremendously well. We're not doing well. There's a huge amount of plastic in our oceans, washing up on our coast, and a lot of it is from us. We do very poorly at 12 per cent of plastic recycling across the board and 16 per cent of plastic packaging. That's not good enough. We don't really have a lot of reason to be sanguine or to be optimistic about it.</p><p>Considering how poorly Australia does when it comes to plastic pollution, considering how little progress we've made and considering how far off track we are with respect to the National Waste Policy Action Plan's plastic and packaging targets, there really is no good reason or excuse to avoid adding packaging to the minister's priority list right now, which is precisely what this amendment seeks to do. On that basis, I commend the amendment to the House.</p> <p class="speaker">Zali Steggall</p><p>The amendment moved by the member for Fremantle is welcome, and I support it. Item 1 will insert new requirements on the minister to publish packaging products on the minister's priority list. Currently, packaging is dealt with under the National Environment Protection (Used Packaging Materials) Measure established by the National Environmental Protection Council in 1997 and also under the Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation, or APCO, co-regulatory arrangements, which in 2018 listed a number of targets for packaging.</p><p>Packaging, especially plastics, is one of the leading contributors to waste in our oceans and elsewhere in the environment. Community alarm at the deterioration in the health of our oceans and the extent of the issue means we must escalate our ambition in dealing with the problem. This amendment will ensure that packaging is a matter of priority for the government and ensure that attention is on the steps industry and APCO must take to deal with this issue.</p><p>This bill is an opportunity to make headway on a pervasive and complex problem, and we must ensure we get it right. This amendment will help in doing that.</p> <p class="speaker">Trevor Evans</p><p>I thank the members opposite for their contributions. As flagged, I will shortly be moving some government amendments that may address some of the issues that have been raised by the opposition and others. Regarding packaging and the proposal to add packaging to the minister's priority list, the government does not support those amendments. I certainly do understand the desire to see fast progress on packaging—we share that desire, and I'll return in a moment to what the government is doing—but it's worth really focusing on what this particular proposal means.</p><p>Adding packaging to the minister's priority list does not make logical sense and leads to a somewhat redundant outcome. Let's be clear why that is. The minister's priority list is a mechanism to do one of two things. It's either a government encouraging industry and experts to create and bring forward a new scheme or it's a government flagging that regulation is likely to be considered in the future. Right now for packaging there is already a scheme and there's already regulation. In fact, there's more than just regulation. There are laws and, as has been referred to by other speakers, the National Environment Protection (Used Packaging Materials) Measure 2011 and its state counterparts. If we think through for a moment how it would ultimately play out if this proposal were adopted, the minister would put packaging on the minister's priority list and then after, say, 12 months the minister would have to come out and ask, 'Has anyone come to the scheme?' Of course, everybody would say, 'No, because there is already one,' at which point the minister might say, 'What if I regulate? That's the other option available to me,' and everybody would have to reply, 'There are already regulations and laws, and they existed before you put this on the priority list.' So you can understand, I think, by going through that process, why I see that this would be a potentially redundant outcome if the parliament were to go ahead and do what is proposed. In my view, it's the wrong lever to pull. The real action, I suppose, is already further progressed, much further along than a listing might achieve.</p><p>So I say respectfully to members opposite that there are more-effective actions that we can take, and that our government is acting in the following three ways. First, the government has officially endorsed the strong and ambitious 2025 packaging targets of the Australian Packaging Covenant, including for all packaging in Australia to be recyclable, reusable or compostable, and to achieve 70 per cent recycling rates for packaging by 2025. So we're backing Australia's packaging targets and we're helping the progress being made there, through our policies and our reforms and by way of our government funding. We've negotiated to increase some of the packaging targets and we've enshrined the targets at the highest levels of the National Waste Policy Action Plan, agreed to by all governments in Australia. Second, in relation to the packaging scheme we already have in Australia, the bills we're debating now will help that scheme to be a better and stronger scheme. The Packaging Covenant have publicly said that, as soon as parliament passes these laws, they'll take advantage of our reforms, they'll seek accreditation of the scheme under our new laws and they'll seek to utilise some new powers and mechanisms contained in our reforms, such as the ability to work closely with the minister to address issues like free riding.</p><p>Third, in relation to the packaging laws we already have in Australia, which have been referenced, if one believes that those laws are in need of improvement—specifically I call out the potential issue of enforcement given that no Australian state has taken enforcement action under their laws in recent years—then obviously the best course of action is to directly amend those laws. I note that our government is reviewing the NEPM for used packaging right now. That's underway.</p><p>There are other government actions which will significantly improve the recycling of packaging. Our government is working on finalising a national plastics plan right now, and it's funding the creation of a new product stewardship scheme. The government is working tirelessly on our nation's priorities for waste reduction across all waste streams, including packaging. Those actions I just outlined, in my view, are the more effective ways to tackle packaging issues, and that's what our government is focused on.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>The question is that the amendment moved by the member for Fremantle be disagreed to.</p>
|