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

I rise to contribute to the debate on the Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill 2020, and in doing so associate myself with the comments already put forward by the Greens spokesperson on waste and recycling, who, of course, is Senator Whish-Wilson. Senator Whish-Wilson has been an avid supporter for a proper recycling and waste management industry in this country, and I think it's fair to say that we wouldn't be here, where we are today, debating this piece of legislation if it weren't for the work of Senator Whish-Wilson.

We know, of course, that reducing waste is and must be the goal that all of us strive and advocate for. We need to be reducing waste. We need to be reducing the stuff that makes waste. I think our lives—and many people would reflect upon this—are just increasingly full of stuff. There's stuff we don't really need, stuff that doesn't last long enough and stuff that, at the end of it, we think: 'How did we end up with this? What do we do with it now?' That is why we need a proper management system that is fully circular. We need to be reducing the amount of crap that's made that isn't recyclable, that isn't actually reusable and perhaps think about whether we need it in the first place.

We need to be making sure that when we do put in place systems that deal with the waste that we have that it is done in the most environmentally friendly and sustainable manner. We need to stop producing in this country and, indeed, around the world single-use plastic, and if you can't reuse something we shouldn't be creating it. That, I think, is the principle that we need going forward, because there is a lot of rubbish out there already that we don't know how we're going to manage. The last thing we need to be doing is creating more of it to make it even harder to deal with the problems at hand.

We know that our oceans are choking. We know that our waterways are polluted. We know that our animals are dying because of the amount of plastic, rubbish and toxic waste that they have ingested. We know that animals are being caught and strangled because of the rubbish that is left in our rivers and winds up in our oceans.

Sea Shepherd Australia has been running beach clean-ups around the country, and I've been to a number of them in my home state of South Australia. Since 2016, Sea Shepherd Australia has hosted nearly 700 beach and remote clean-ups, joining with over 28,000 members of the community. It is just incredible, when you go to these beach clean-ups, where you put aside two or three hours and walk out with buckets, tongs and gloves, the amount of rubbish that is collected over one simple morning. Children, in particular, are gobsmacked at the amount of rubbish that they find, and children are the ones who are really calling on us as adults and as leaders to take serious action on this front.

For far too long Australia has not cared about the rubbish it creates and where it goes. This legislation is a step in the right direction. It's starting to deal with this terrible pollution problem we have, but it isn't the final solution and it isn't the only answer. We still have many more steps to take. One of them of course is banning single-use plastics. We have to stop creating this crap. We have to stop creating this rubbish. We have to deal with the plastic that we have already.

We also need to be putting in place systems that ensure that disposal of the waste is done in the most environmentally sound and sustainable way. While this legislation is a step in the right direction, I am concerned about the hole in this legislation that would act as a perverse incentive for the incineration of waste. Why am I concerned about that? We need a clear statement from this government that the aim is to reduce the amount of pollution and to reduce the amount of toxic waste. Allowing for the incineration of plastic in order to get rid of it is going to create even more problems for us in the future, particularly as we tackle the very serious environmental crisis of climate change and carbon pollution.

We know we need to be getting out of fossil fuels. We have to stop burning fossil fuels. The last thing we want to do is create a perverse incentive by saying, 'You can create more plastic and we'll create a market mechanism to ensure you can keep burning it,' because that is simply burning oil and fossil fuels and creating more pollution. That's not the pathway we want to take. That is why I move:

At the end of the motion, add: ", but the Senate:

(a) agrees that waste-to-energy incineration has no place in a sustainable zero waste management and circular economy agenda; and

(b) calls on the Government to rule out any financial or regulatory support for waste-to-energy incineration".

After all we know about the rubbish that is clogging our oceans and waterways, which takes so long to deal with, the last thing we want to do is create an incentive for vested interest not to reduce the amount of plastic that's produced but to simply put it in an incinerator, burn it and claim that this is some type of clean energy production. It is not. It is toxic and backwards. That is not the fully circular waste management agenda that we need.

Don't get me wrong. I understand that across the country we've become better and better at dealing with the gases that come out of landfill. In fact, there are many ways that the gas coming out of landfill is being captured and turned into energy. But we don't want to see a market created because of loopholes in the law and because the wrong signal is being sent by government. We don't want to see a bunch of companies set up to make a quick buck by burning the plastic in an incinerator and turning it into energy. We need to be reducing the amount of plastic we produce in the first place.

Some of the landfill-to-energy programs that already exist in Australia have taken the best available science from around the world, particularly places like Germany. They rely on the anaerobic digestion system. This is taking green organic waste and, rather than having the toxic gas released into the atmosphere, capturing that gas and turning it into energy. I understand that, and of course it needs to continue, because we do have this organic matter in landfill. But there is a very big difference between that and setting up a market that is supported by government, whether through regulation or financial support or incentives, that sends a signal that you can keep producing as much plastic as you want if these guys over here are going to make money by burning it and creating pollution. That is not the pathway that we need to take.

So I urge the crossbench, I urge the government and I urge the opposition to support my second reading amendment in relation to this, because we have to draw a line in the sand somewhere. I've listened to a number of the contributions from senators on all sides in relation to this legislation, and I think it's fair to say that there is goodwill in relation to dealing with waste and recycling and protecting our environment. Let's not undo all of that goodwill and that good work by providing an incentive for some cowboys out there in the industry who want to keep making plastic so that they can burn plastic waste and sell it as power. That's going to create more pollution. It doesn't deal with the issue of plastics choking our waterways and our oceans, and it doesn't deal with the fundamental issue that we have: we create too much crap and we don't recycle or reuse enough of it.

We have to make sure that we get back to basics: reduce, reuse, recycle. Of course, if we do all of this properly, what do we create? We create green jobs, the greenest jobs available. There is a huge industry that is desperate for support to ensure that we deal with waste in a circular process. But all of that will be undercut if we allow, through this legislation, a loophole that provides a perverse incentive for cowboys out there in the industry to make a quick buck by burning plastics and creating pollution. So I urge the government to consider this and not to let that happen. I commend the bills to the parliament, but I urge that those actions in relation to the second reading amendment be taken on board and supported by the government.