Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make some comments on the Environment Protection (Beverage Container Deposit and Recovery Scheme) Bill 2010. Again, I say that it is really important that this issue, which has been on the agenda for a considerable period of time, is given the opportunity for open discussion in this place. I am not quite sure whether Senator Bob Brown will be speaking as fulsomely on this bill as on the previous bill, but nonetheless the principle of having the opportunity for us to have the discussion must be supported and must be, in many ways, rewarded.

As with the previous bill, this bill was actually given the opportunity to be discussed by a Senate committee in 2009. At that time the Environment, Communications and the Arts Committee did have a series of public hearings around the process. The interest of the public in the area was evidenced by the number of people who provided submissions and who actually came up for the public hearings. There continues to be an issue in that there needs to be awareness of the issue to which the bill relates. As I said in relation to the previous bill, there must be full engagement of all those people who are stakeholders in the process—and, in the end, through a cooperative arrangement, with an understanding that the end result must be to the benefit of all Australians, we will be able to reach an outcome.

In that sense, I think the legislation we have in front of us actually cuts through, to an extent, and cuts off the kind of involvement that we are seeing taking place in industry and also across the states—because the issues around this bill actually need the full engagement of all state governments, and the ministers at that level, to commit to having a process that will work, that will be effectively costed and that will come up with an arrangement in which people can have confidence and through which the knowledge and the clarity of the process can be shared.

The bill seeks to establish a government run—and, in this sense, a Commonwealth government run—container deposit scheme that will collect a deposit from importers and producers of beverage containers under four litres. I do not actually have the product in front of me, Mr Acting Deputy President, to show you what up to a four-litre container means, but people in the area know, because they are the ones who are making the purchases on a regular basis.

The bill provides for a full refund to a consumer when containers are returned to the collection point. The actual amount of the environmental deposit could be varied by regulation, so it follows the standard process in this chamber. As we see regularly in Commonwealth legislation, it will start at a certain amount and can then be increased by regulation through the parliamentary process.

According to the bill we have, the scheme will be implemented and run by a Commonwealth department. I do not think Senator Ludlam has actually created a name for the new Commonwealth department, but the process would be run by a Commonwealth department.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can give it a name!

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We might be able to have some kind of contest, Senator Birmingham—through you, Mr Acting Deputy President—to develop an effective name for a new Commonwealth department. The department’s functions would include—and these are the preliminary functions as set out in the bill—collecting the container deposit, authorising premises as collection depots and transfer stations and providing grants or other financial incentives to encourage the use of recyclable and reusable containers. The bill goes on to say that the department could fund and support the creation of markets for collected beverage containers and materials, provide financial support for kerbside recycling services, help to offset the collection industry’s costs under the scheme—and that was an issue under discussion at the environment committee’s hearings—and fund product development into the future.

The scheme proposed by this bill is far broader than the current container deposit schemes that are currently in place in a number of states as we speak. We know about the South Australian scheme, because it has been much lauded and talked about in many public meetings that I have attended. A container deposit scheme has been in place in South Australia since the 1970s. I am sure that Senator Birmingham can tell us exactly how it came into being and how it is working. It is a matter of fact that when people talk about this issue they regularly refer to that which is operating in South Australia. The Northern Territory parliament recently passed legislation for a similar scheme to be introduced there.

The scheme that is in this bill, though, is not the same as that which we see working in South Australia and hopefully in the NT. The scheme in South Australia and the one to be introduced in the Northern Territory are based on an industry run arrangement. Industry are fully engaged and are organising, running and owning the scheme. The bill before us would introduce a different mechanism over the top of these two existing arrangements, which would increase the regulatory complexity and possibly the potential cost to industry and the community.

It is not absolutely clear in the bill or from discussions that have taken place how exactly the scheme presented by this bill would be funded. This is an important point when considering a piece of legislation that would if passed immediately create responsibilities for government. How this would be funded and the budgetary implications are not clearly spelt out. In fact, as we have heard, the bill proposes the creation of a new entity that would have particular functions and would need—as we always say in this place—to be effectively resourced so that whatever the purpose of that organisation is they would be able to confidentially commit to completing the task before them.

It is suggested in the bill that the proposed scheme be funded from unclaimed deposits and revenue from recovered resources. Under the bill, the deposit is returned in full. The bill does not provide any funding for the operation of the scheme, including administrative infrastructure for the collection and refund of the deposit and capital investment in collection, transport and recycling infrastructure. As we know, the infrastructure basis of any legislation is critical to its effectiveness. Consistently in Senate estimates, when we talk about the implications of and activities under legislation already in place, we have ongoing discussions about whether the infrastructure resources have been effectively planned and implemented. Key to any effective system at a national level must be an understanding of the funding implications and the infrastructure needs, particularly when we have quite specific duties spelt out in a bill. One of they key aspects of this is that it is not clear if any shortfall between the income that is generated by the scheme in the bill and what needs to be expended should be covered by the Commonwealth. That is something that any government would be concerned about looking to the future.

The Environmental Protection and Heritage Council, the EPHC, has been as we know investigating national options for addressing package waste and litter formally since 2008. It initiated a regulation impact statement in July 2010 to assess a number of options, including the national container deposit scheme. Because of the complexity of the task, we need to ensure that there is effective consideration given to a range of options. One size will not fit all. It rarely does for any issue, but that is particularly true for the ever present and growing issue of waste and recycling issue and how our community will respond. It is most important that we look at a range of operations and that variations in area and need are reflected in the government response.

As I said, the Senate inquiry into this bill when it was introduced in 2008 found that there was insufficient information to assess whether a national container deposit scheme would increase recycling and decrease litter at the least cost to the community. That is a core point and one which is part of consideration through the regulation impact statement. The need is clear and agreed. Public interest is clear and agreed. The effective response must be carefully considered, planned and implemented. The bill we have before us is but one option out of a range. That is not to say that there should not be consideration given to Senator Ludlam’s bill. But my belief is that we need to look very carefully at the regulation impact statement that is being developed and be aware of the ongoing evolution of knowledge and awareness about this issue.

This is not an issue that is peculiar to Australia. The fight to ensure that human beings do not further damage the planet through their waste is very important and the subject of much discussion internationally. Part of the role of the EPHC is to ensure that that knowledge is assessed and reflected in the Australian environment so that we can get the best result.

The government’s product stewardship bill—currently under development, I trust—will enable the establishment of national product stewardship schemes, including schemes addressing packaging, such as container deposit schemes. The Environment Protection and Heritage Council have agreed to undertake a consultation regulatory impact statement on the options. There has been agreement from the EPHC to consider a range of options in the regulatory impact statement, one of which will be the kind of process that is before us in this bill. Only then will we be able to ensure that the issues have been effectively responded to by the government. I have spoken about the cost, and that is one thing that needs to be taken into account when we are looking at any changes.

I certainly think we can, through the debate we are having now, focus in even more on the issues and ensure that people have the clearest understanding of the shared concerns. As I said earlier this morning in relation to another bill, no-one can self-select out of this debate. It impacts on all of us. If we are going to maintain our environment and maintain our community health we need to effectively find, through all levels of government—engaging with the states in particular, through COAG—ways of ensuring that we have a scheme that is owned by the community, that is effectively resourced by government and that will make a difference to what we do on a daily basis.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure to rise to contribute to this debate on the Environment Protection (Beverage Container Deposit and Recovery Scheme) Bill 2010. I thank the Greens for bringing this bill forward and ensuring continued discussion on this important topic. As a South Australian Senator, which Senator Moore alluded to, I have grown up with container deposit schemes. They are part of day-to-day life in South Australia and have been in place since 1977. Many, many people in South Australia, including Senator Hanson-Young, have grown up with such schemes and in many cases have known nothing other than the container deposit scheme.

But it is important when we consider this legislation that we remember the genesis of that scheme—what brought it about—and how things have changed and moved on since 1977. Indeed, at the time the scheme was introduced it was very much an anti-litter provision. It was a littering initiative and it was designed to ensure that we reduced the amount of roadside waste and rubbish from beverage containers. Yes, it had recycling principles underpinning it, but recycling was not at that stage the primary objective of the scheme. Over the years, the recycling principles and benefits have in some ways come to provide a more significant benefit than perhaps the anti-littering principles do in the South Australian scheme. It is certainly a scheme that operates to the benefit of both of those areas.

Since 1977 we have seen, in South Australia and in all states and territories, a great surge in recycling activity. No longer do we require householders to take their waste to a depot to have it recycled. Householders in metropolitan areas in every state of the country can recycle simply by sorting their containers at home and putting them out on the kerbside. Thankfully, that is what most people do. Local government has done a very good job in promoting and developing kerbside recycling initiatives that have in many ways reduced the recycling benefit of initiatives such as container deposit legislation.

That said, the recycling industry still faces some real challenges, in particular the away-from-home recyclables—those resulting from things consumed in the workplace, in public places and in other areas where people consume food, beverages and a whole variety of other goods, but especially in workplace situations. It is in those places where recycling rates are far lower than they have been in households, and it is in those places that we need to see some focus on change and changed behaviour.

Container deposit legislation, as introduced in South Australia and applied there, has had some benefit on the littering front and therefore on public places and roadsides. As I said, that that was its initial intention, and it certainly has provided some opportunities to reduce the littering in those community areas and spaces. Again, we have seen local and state governments really up the effort in public spaces to provide for recycling of recyclable materials. We are now seeing an increasing effort in many public places to enable, as you do at home, the separation of those recyclable materials that are the focus of this bill.

In the workplace, much more remains to be done. I do not see particular efforts of container legislation having any real impact in workplaces in most instances. As I see it, container deposit legislation has not changed many workplace practices. Indeed, although workplace recycling has perhaps made some steps in the area of paper recycling, it has to make many greater steps in areas from industrial waste in industrial workplaces right through to consumable waste in office workplaces and the like.

This is where we need a comprehensive approach to recycling and product stewardship. Senator Moore certainly highlighted the need for such a comprehensive approach. Getting a better approach to product stewardship has been talked about for some years. In the electronics area we see huge challenges of what to do with electronic waste and how to make sure that that waste is actually recycled—the roles and responsibilities of the manufacturers, the importers, the wholesalers and the retailers in line with the householders, the businesses and the consumers. These are the issues to be decided. Who pays is always a very significant issue.

But, again, in electronic waste we have seen some progress—not enough, but certainly some. I hope the work of the Environment Protection and Heritage Council can bring some more progress over the next few years than it has over the past few. I know it was a commitment of the Labor government prior to the 2007 election to take issues of container deposit to the Environment Protection and Heritage Council and to try to get them resolved at that council. Unfortunately, the government failed to satisfactorily progress these issues at that ministerial forum. I think it is important that if we are to take steps forward they are done in unison with the states for a national approach in all of these areas of product stewardship and waste management.

I note that there have been moves and steps, some of which Senator Moore alluded to, in other states and territories than South Australia, and the Northern Territory parliament is currently debating a container deposit legislation scheme. There are discussions in other states, and indeed I see news reports today of the New South Wales coalition being open-minded to the adoption of such a scheme, but again highlighting that if it is to be adopted, especially in a state like New South Wales with its close borders to the ACT and Queensland and the significant flow of people across those borders, it needs to have some decent national management protocols in place. So there is every reason to be hopeful that these issues can be constructively and productively discussed and addressed at these ministerial fora.

Equally we should not overlook the fact that these schemes come with costs, and those costs are passed through. That is why I highlighted the significant change that has taken place in South Australia. The reality is that in every other state and territory household recycling rates, and therefore the recycling rates of beverage containers, have increased dramatically over the years, without the need for a container deposit scheme such as this bill proposes. So we need to be confident that, if this is to be implemented in other states or if it is to be implemented at a national level, it is going to provide some level of net benefit.

In noting the work that has been done already by the ministerial council there are questions as to whether the net benefit is actually there. The ministerial council commissioned some research and it was provided in May 2009. It is highlighted in the committee report into this proposed bill. That report, prepared by consultants BDA Group and Wright Corporate Strategy, has attempted to quantify the costs and the benefits of introducing a scheme of this nature. In its quantification of these costs and benefits it has reported a total national annual net economic cost to government, industry and the broader community when it takes into account all of the compliance and administrative cost, some of which Senator Moore mentioned, and highlighted some of the questions as to exactly how the proposal in this bill would work. The BDA report estimates those costs to be around $492 million per annum in net terms. Overall it sees economic costs of $763 million versus economic benefits of $294 million. Those costs stretch from the administrative costs of operating a scheme like this through to the costs for the packaging industry and others involved in its implementation.

On the other side of the ledger, the benefits do relate to the fact that you will get some level of further increase in recycling rates, but it is a case at the margins whether that level is going to offset the costs involved. It is important to understand that there are consumer costs at play here as well. Broadly speaking, the South Australian scheme that has operated since 1977 is subsidised by consumers across the rest of the country. The national producers of goods which sell within South Australia in that scheme tend not to vary their prices for South Australia and tend not to pass through the increased container deposit to consumers in South Australia. They actually absorb them at a national level but South Australians enjoy the opportunity to reclaim that deposit. That is a nice situation for consumers in my home state but a national scheme would, of course, remove that cross-subsidisation that occurs at present. In removing that cross-subsidisation it would mean that all consumers would end up paying more for these goods. Yes, they are deposits, yes, consumers get them back, but there are other economic costs built into the way it operates, costs that manufacturers will pass through in the pricing structure and costs that consumers will have to pay. So these are things that we need to bear in mind in debate about the costs and benefits of a scheme such as this one.

I am sympathetic to the objects the Greens have in presenting this bill. I do believe that so far as possible we should be seeking to ensure that all recyclable goods are recycled. We should be ensuring we have the right strategies in place. I am willing to consider with an open mind the best discussions that can be had around container deposit legislation. But it does appear at present on the evidence that the costs of implementing such a scheme nationally, given the extent to which the recycling industry has moved and motivated itself and developed over the last few years, may well outweigh the benefits of such a scheme. We need to be clear that there will be distinct benefits if we are going to go through the cost and the time of implementing something along those lines. We need to ensure that all the states and territories are willing to sign up to it. We need to ensure that local government, which has a very significant role in the way recycling works in this country, is on board and sees benefits in this. There are concerns from local government and from recyclers generally that a container deposit scheme incentivises households to take the beverage containers out of the waste stream and return them to get the deposit back. In particular with aluminium products that has a real impact because some of those are the most profitable products that go through the waste stream and that provide a return to those councils and to those recyclers to make kerbside collection viable.

These are factors that will need to be considered. I know full well that in my childhood growing up, in the shed out the back there was a hessian bag and in the hessian bag all the cans and bottles would go. I am sure Senator McEwen’s children have done the same over the years. Indeed, it is a great source of pocket money for children growing up in South Australia.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am jealous.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ludwig is jealous. The government could do with all the extra pocket money it can get as well, Senator Ludwig. Whilst it is great for young people and it is a great incentive, what happens is that those cans and those bottles do not go into the kerbside collection. When they do not go into the kerbside collection there is a cost there in terms of the operation of that kerbside collection and there is a duplication of resources as well. Let us not forget that if we are incentivising people to be making separate drop-offs of recyclable goods, rather than going through the one kerbside collection scheme, there are other flow-on costs to having people divert their activities and their resources to do that when there is a far more efficient mechanism at work. All of these factors will have been considered in the BDA report. It is why it shows there is a net economic cost to this proposal and it is why it needs to be treated with due caution.

But I do encourage the Greens and welcome the fact that on this they are ensuring the discussion continues. They are holding the government to account in this area. As I said, it was a 2007 election promise of the government to look at a scheme like this. We are now in 2011, but we have not seen much progress. We have seen some of the modelling which I have referenced. We will now see a newly structured ministerial council, some of the members of which have indicated their openness and willingness to look at these issues. I hope we can address these issues. If this is not the way to go forward, I hope we can see the ministerial council outline alternative strategies for how we actually get the right product stewardship in place for all products of recyclable standard, including beverage containers. I hope we see the ministerial council progress that with industry to a point where we have appropriate standards and, importantly, we can ensure that we get the same types of recycling returns outside of residential households that we have managed to develop as a country inside residential households. The growth in residential recycling is something of which all Australians should be proud. Let us strive to get recycling done better throughout the rest of the community. I am not convinced as yet that this legislation is the way to do that, but we certainly look forward to seeing more discussion, more analysis and, importantly, more action in the next year or two to ensure that all of those areas that have potential are addressed and fixed.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak in favour of the Environment Protection (Beverage Container Deposit and Recovery Scheme) Bill 2010 put forward by Senator Ludlam on behalf of the Greens. I thank the government and the opposition for their contributions. Of course, everyone thinks this is a great idea. This is a wonderful idea. Why wouldn’t we want to put in place a scheme that would allow us to recycle things that are recyclable? In South Australia we have had a successful scheme in place for 30 years. I say this as a South Australian senator. Senator Birmingham spoke about the positive contribution that this scheme has made by ensuring that South Australia has a lower litter rate than it otherwise would and the positive contribution that this type of scheme makes to the community. I remember being woken up several times over the years early on a Saturday morning by kids knocking on the door asking if we had any cans or bottles that they could cash in to put the money towards their community organisation. There are a variety of different reasons why this scheme is positive. It is positive for the environment and for the community. A government which shows some leadership and makes this happen will show that it takes a long-term and responsible view of the types of products that are out there being consumed.

In the time it took Senator Birmingham to give his speech, 62½ thousand beverage containers were thrown out. Over one year, nine million recyclable containers are put into landfill or simply thrown away as litter. The scheme as proposed under this piece of legislation would ensure that we deal with that litter. The scheme would also include a revenue-positive aspect, producing $90 million annually in surplus which could go directly into community based organisations to promote the necessity of preserving our environment, keeping our communities clean and ensuring that things are not simply thrown onto the kerb.

Both the government and the opposition spoke about this being a great idea. We need to move on this. We need to do things. Yes, it was a promise from the government back in 2007, but what have we seen happen since then? Not much. We have seen the South Australian scheme continuing along very well. We have seen the Northern Territory adopt a similar scheme. I must congratulate the Northern Territory government for having a mature, bipartisan approach and ensuring that legislation similar to that in South Australia is now being initiated in the Northern Territory. That is a wonderful thing to see. But at the federal level, despite the promises from the government in 2007, we have seen very, very little action. ‘We sent it off to COAG and we’re now sending it off to a ministerial council.’ We all know that, if there is one issue that you know you need to talk about but you do not really want to act on, you send it off to COAG, otherwise known as the black hole of government bureaucracy.

Let us face it: if we think this is a good idea, we need to get on and do it. Thankfully there are states that are seriously considering the need to take further action and to move on this. But really this is something on which we should be seeing some leadership from our federal government. This bill puts on the table the opportunity for all sides of parliament to say: ‘You know what? This should not be a very controversial issue.’ This is about recycling cans and bottles. It is about ensuring that we clean up Australia not just once a year but every day. It is about ensuring that there is a process by which people can easily participate, whether they live in South Australia, the Northern Territory, the ACT, Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland, WA or Tasmania. It is about ensuring that, as a country, we believe that picking up after ourselves and making it easy for people to do that is not that bad an idea—as both the government and the opposition agree. It is just too hard to get there, it seems.

We really need to see some leadership at a federal level. A lot of effort is put into programs like Clean Up Australia Day. When we look at the statistics of the types of things that are collected just on that one day, beverage containers make up the overwhelming bulk. Sixty per cent of glass items, 47 per cent of metal items and 33 per cent of plastic items are beverage containers.

I would like this parliament to seriously consider this; it should not be a hard issue. This legislation puts in place a revenue-positive scheme. Ninety million dollars annually would be collected through this scheme that could be put directly back into our local communities. We would be engaging with the public. We would be engaging with local governments. We would be engaging with community groups. We would be working with the states. And we would be showing under that leadership umbrella of the federal government that, yes, we care about what Australia looks like, we care about our environment and we care about taking responsibility for the things that are left behind. That is exactly what this legislation is about. Everyone wants to talk about it; let us get on and do it with a revenue-positive scheme such as that outlined in Senator Ludlam’s bill on behalf of the Greens. What a good way forward. Let us not see the excuses of things just going off to the black hole of COAG; let us actually take some leadership and get something done.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have eight seconds left, Senator Xenophon.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I support the bill.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time for the debate has expired—yes, Senator Xenophon.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to incorporate my speech on the second reading debate in Hansard. I thought I was going to have a chance to deliver it. It is a very short speech.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

For decades we’ve been espousing the importance of recycling and this Bill introduces measures which encourage this.

Container deposit legislation has numerous benefits.

It encourages recycling, it reduces litter, it provides economic incentive to clean it up and it provides income to individuals and organisations who collect bottles and cans.

In 1975, South Australia passed container deposit legislation and, in 2003, amended the legislation to expand the scheme to capture an even broader range of beverage containers.

This scheme is working effectively.

It has a recovery rate of over 80 percent of containers, with 1.5 tonnes per person recycled per year.

Last year, the Northern Territory Government announced plans to implement its own scheme by the end of 2011, similar to that in operation in South Australia, and it’s time for the rest of the States and Territories to follow suit.

This legislation is a national scheme that all States and Territories can sign up to, where a 10 cent deposit would apply to the sale of each eligible beverage container, with the deposit paid to the department.

Upon ‘return’ to an authorised collection depots or transfer stations, the recycler would receive 10cents and the Department overseeing the scheme would refund the money to them.

And any unclaimed deposits or funds would be retained by the Department and used to invest in infrastructure for the scheme.

On all accounts, this is a good proposal.

This Bill will reduce litter and waste and the amount that goes into landfill, it provides economic incentives and it’s proven to work not just in South Australia but in countries around the world.

Debate interrupted.