|
senate vote 2020-12-07#18
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2022-07-22 14:34:49
|
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; in Committee- Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill 2020 and others - in Committee - Stronger labelling
Description
<p class="speaker">Peter Whish-Wilson</p><p>by leave—In respect of the Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill 2020, I move Greens amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 1031 revised together:</p><p class="italic">(1) Clause 10, page 9 (after line 13), after the definition of <i>intellectual property rights</i>, insert:</p><p class="italic"><i>labelled plastic</i>: see subsection 94Q(1).</p><p class="italic">(2) Clause 66, page 67 (after line 13), after the paragraph beginning "These requirements might", insert:</p><p class="italic">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.</p><p class="italic">(3) Page 100 (after line 16), after Part 5, insert:</p><p class="italic">Part 5C—Mandatory product stewardship—packaging of labelled plastics</p><p class="italic">94Q Packaging of labelled plastics</p><p class="italic">(1) This section applies in relation to a product (a <i>labelled plastic</i>) that is made of, or contains, plastic if:</p><p class="italic">(a) the product is a sanitary product, within the meaning prescribed by the rules; or</p><p class="italic">(b) the product is a wet wipe, within the meaning prescribed by the rules; or</p><p class="italic">(c) the product is a balloon; or</p><p class="italic">(d) the product is a filter tip (within the meaning of the <i>Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011</i>) of a cigarette; or</p><p class="italic">(e) the product is specified in rules made for the purposes of this paragraph.</p><p class="italic">(2) On and after 1 January 2022, the packaging of a labelled plastic must state, in a prominent location on the packaging:</p><p class="italic">(a) that the product is harmful to the environment if the product is released or incorrectly disposed of; and</p><p class="italic">(b) any other matter specified in rules made for the purposes of this paragraph.</p><p class="italic">(3) For the purposes of this Part, <i>packaging</i> 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 class="italic">94R Packaging of labelled plastics—constitutional corporations</p><p class="italic">(1) A person contravenes this subsection if:</p><p class="italic">(a) the person is a constitutional corporation; and</p><p class="italic">(b) the person distributes a labelled plastic for commercial purposes; and</p><p class="italic">(c) the packaging of the labelled plastic does not comply with subsection 94Q(2).</p><p class="italic"> <i>Fault</i> <i>-based offence</i></p><p class="italic">(2) A person commits an offence if the person contravenes subsection (1).</p><p class="italic">Penalty: 600 penalty units.</p><p class="italic"> <i>Strict liability</i></p><p class="italic">(3) A person commits an offence of strict liability if the person contravenes subsection (1).</p><p class="italic">Penalty: 300 penalty units.</p><p class="italic"> <i>Civil penalty provision</i></p><p class="italic">(4) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes subsection (1).</p><p class="italic">Civil penalty: 1,200 penalty units.</p><p class="italic">94S Packaging of labelled plastics—persons other than constitutional corporations</p><p class="italic">(1) A person contravenes this subsection if:</p><p class="italic">(a) the person distributes a labelled plastic:</p><p class="italic">(i) in the course of, or for the purposes of, constitutional trade or commerce; or</p><p class="italic">(ii) in a Territory for commercial purposes; or</p><p class="italic">(iii) on behalf of a constitutional corporation for commercial purposes; or</p><p class="italic">(iv) for the purposes of supplying goods to a constitutional corporation; and</p><p class="italic">(b) the packaging of the labelled plastic does not comply with subsection 94Q(2).</p><p class="italic"> <i>Fault</i> <i>-based offence</i></p><p class="italic">(2) A person commits an offence if the person contravenes subsection (1).</p><p class="italic">Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years or 120 penalty units, or both.</p><p class="italic"> <i>Strict liability</i></p><p class="italic">(3) A person commits an offence of strict liability if the person contravenes subsection (1).</p><p class="italic">Penalty: 60 penalty units.</p><p class="italic"> <i>Civil penalty provision</i></p><p class="italic">(4) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes subsection (1).</p><p class="italic">Civil penalty: 240 penalty units.</p><p class="italic">(4) Clause 102, page 110 (after line 6), after paragraph (1)(q), insert:</p><p class="italic">(qg) subsection 94R(3);</p><p class="italic">(qh) subsection 94S(3);</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p> <p class="speaker">Jenny McAllister</p><p>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.</p> <p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>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.</p> <p class="speaker">Slade Brockman</p><p>The question is that Greens amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 1031 revised be agreed to.</p> -
- The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2020-12-07.202.1) introduced by Tasmanian Senator [Peter Whish-Wilson](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/tasmania/peter_whish-wilson) (Greens), which means they failed.
- Senator Whish-Wilson [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2020-12-07.202.1):
- > *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.*
-
-
|