Division Description Changes — 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 — 7th Dec 2020

Change	Division
senate vote 2020-12-07#19 Edited by mackay staff on 2022-07-22 14:24:19	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 - Plastic packaging Description ~~<p class="speaker">Peter Whish-Wilson</p>~~ <p>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.</p> The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2020-12-07.206.4) introduced by Tasmanian Senator [Peter Whish-Wilson](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/tasmania/peter_whish-wilson) (Greens), which means it failed. Senator Whish-Wilson [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2020-12-07.206.4): *> 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.* ### Amendment text > (1) Clause 67, page 68 (after line 21), after subclause (1), insert: > *>> First priority list mus*t 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". ~~<p class="speaker">Slade Brockman</p>~~ ~~<p>Senator Whish-Wilson, could you indicate which amendments you wish to move.</p>~~ ~~<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) and (2) on sheet 1043 revised:</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">(1) Clause 67, page 68 (after line 21), after subclause (1), insert:</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic"> <i>First priority list must include plastic packaging</i></p>~~ <p class="italic">(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.</p> ~~<p class="italic">(1B) To avoid doubt, subsection (1A) does not prevent the first Minister's priority list from including products other than plastic packaging.</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">(2) Clause 185, page 183 (line 10), omit "a review", substitute "an independent review".</p>~~ <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Jenny McAllister</p>~~ <p>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.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p>~~ <p>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.</p> ~~<p>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1043 be agreed to.</p>~~

~~Peter Whish-Wilson~~
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.
The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2020-12-07.206.4) introduced by Tasmanian Senator [Peter Whish-Wilson](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/tasmania/peter_whish-wilson) (Greens), which means it failed.
Senator Whish-Wilson [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2020-12-07.206.4):
> *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.*
### Amendment text
> *(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".*
~~Slade Brockman~~
~~Senator Whish-Wilson, could you indicate which amendments you wish to move.~~
~~Peter Whish-Wilson~~
~~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~~
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~~
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.~~