Container Refund Scheme Bill 2021

Ms WEBB – Mr President, I reassure everyone that I rise to make a short contribution on the bill.

Mr PRESIDENT – There are no time limits here, honourable member.

Ms WEBB – Are there not?  I was not aware.  I am very pleased to speak on the bill.  It certainly, as many others have noted, has been quite a long time coming and has been well discussed for a long time in this state.  I am in thorough agreement with the object of the bill to quite reduce our litter and increase our recycling.  That is very much in context with lots of outcomes we want for our state.

I have appreciated the briefings that have been provided and the time that has been made available for them from all who have contributed their expertise, their thoughts, concerns and questions and their information.  My appreciation for that is on the record.

I have also found it particularly informative and useful to hear the contributions of other members.  So, I thank those members who have made extensive contributions on this bill and particularly for the work they have done in putting a lot of questions to the Leader.  There will be a really substantial amount that comes back through the summary that the Leader will provide.  That has covered a lot of areas that I too would like to hear more about and have on the record as part of this process.

I do not need to add to that too much in my contribution at all.  I also acknowledge the many representations that have been made to us from a whole range of groups and community members, business owners, environmental groups, not-for-profits and also direct information provided from the minister and from departmental folk as well.  Members have provided many in their contributions.  I think that is a really good representation of the different communications that we have received and the breadth of information that has been provided.

Again, I will not need to add to that in my contribution.  I think it is pleasing that there is no real disagreement on a very fundamental question.  We are all very interested to see a scheme in place.  Our key question is:  what kind of scheme? 

We are very fortunate to be able to look to other states to look and learn from what has played out there and from the experiences that they have had.  We are fortunate to be able to draw on a body of work, a considerable body of work that has been provided through research and through policy development as well so that we can be informed in this decision-making.

Other than those very clear main aims of the scheme and the objectives of this bill before us, the other areas that I have noted that have come up for some questions and some differences of opinion including, certainly not limited to, matters around appropriate governance, cost, level of returns and whether that is legislated, the involvement of the not-for-profit sector and sporting groups and the like.  How collection points are organised and where they are located.  Employment outcomes that might be derived from whatever scheme is in place.  And many more of these sorts of matters which I see as secondary matters that fall out of the decisions around the scheme.

We have received representations that cover many of those.  There are still some different views and opinions provided and facts and alternative facts which can sometimes be a little bewildering. 

So, from my assessment as I have engaged with the material, I found that looking through the material provided and the information available, I felt that I have been able to arrive at a defensible view on some of those things where I feel quite confident in an appropriate way forward.  On some of the others, I am still less clear.  I think probably some questions that have been asked here today and answers we might receive may assist with further clarification on some of them. 

I am at a point where I am relatively clear about how I feel about this and what model we should have, going forward.  To add to that and add to my confidence in thinking about where I put my support with a vote on this, I also look to process. 

As you, Mr President, and other members here will appreciate, I am always interested in how we got here.  I think it was quite useful for me not diving as deeply into the content of this topic as, say, the member for Launceston has who has just shared that with us in detail.  I am mostly interested to get confidence from the process itself.  Have followed a process that allows us to arrive at this decision point with the matter in this bill that we can support? 

My understanding of the process is that it has been a relatively robust one so far.  We know there is a long history of the discussion of the topic, decades even by the sound of it.  We know that there have been some distinct reports provided.  The Marsden Jacobs report has been mentioned already.  Extensive work done by the department of the EPA was informed.  They engaged with an expert reference group that, from the description that we have been given, was inclusive of all sides of this issue, all those who have interests in it, from financial interests through to values interests in it. 

The expert reference group had the opportunity to thoroughly engage during the policy development process, provide information and views, provide expertise.  We came to that decision about what model.  My understanding is a decision was made on a preferred model, but then we had another stage of somewhat arms length assessment provided and that was an interesting choice.  It would not necessarily be my preferred choice for that arms length assessment, but it sounds like it was undertaken in good faith and with thoroughness.  The Ministerial Advisory Group put together, made up of people who had no vested interests in the outcome, were tasked with reassessing the four clear options that could have been contemplated.  The advisory group was provided with extensive information and undertook a thorough analysis of the options.  From the discussion we had in our briefing with members of the Ministerial Advisory Group, they were asked to take into consideration the small scale of Tasmania, the relatively small scale of our waste and recycling industries as those downstream processing and export matters, the local business and services matters.  They looked at the evidence provided to them and their assessment of what provided the best balance, the opportunity for our market and would drive the best outcomes at the lowest cost.

That sounded quite a comprehensive process and they squarely landed in support of the split governance model.  I found that to be convincing hearing about that process and the arms length assessment made by people who were not in a position to benefit financially and then have a vested interest.  I was reassured by that.

Without going extensively into those pros and cons as others already have the reassurance hearing about that process came about because they are across what led us to that.  Then a final stage of arms length reassessment provided a robust and defensible pathway to the decision of a split governance model.

I find that split governance model quite appealing and reassuring in itself because it has inbuilt accountability.  We have heard about that already where the scheme coordinator incentivises to keep costs low.  The network operator is incentivising to ensure maximum containers are returned.  There is balance between those two roles being involved at the governance level.  That has a lot of inbuilt appeal as an effective model for our state.

We were able to look toward New South Wales, then Victoria and ACT are bringing it on-line and ACT.  In New South Wales and others where decision making has obviously already occurred as to the best options for those jurisdictions, they have made some similar decisions.  That is not to say we should always follow other jurisdictions.  We must always look at our unique circumstances here in this state and make our assessments.   Loooking at the process followed, I feel relatively confident about these steps taken to arrive at this decision.

I am reassured by some of the other material and information provided about the sorts of discussions that have been engaged with say the small beverage producers in this state and the efforts to look for measures to put in place to assist them not to be disadvantaged by this scheme to an unnecessary degree.

There are probably more conversations to be had and there are certainly some other implementation matters which will no doubt need to be tackled.  The anticipated 12-month implementation period seems to be sound reasonable and responsible.  Especially, as we gather through the briefings New South Wales with a short four-month implementation period, ran into some troubles in the early days after implementation because of that slightly rushed period.

It sounds like we are taking a responsible approach.  No doubt some of those other matters across that implementation time can be ironed out, although we will be wanting to watch carefully and hear from people who are involved as to how they see that developing over time.

I am not convinced of the need for an inquiry at this time.  I will certainly hear arguments put if one is moved for.  I do not know an inquiry by the parliament will do more than re-hash.  There is potentially value in that, because what a parliamentary mechanism, like an inquiry provides, is it is a very public, on-the-record, transparent and accountable way for a matter to be looked at and assessed.  Anyone can engage with it and come forward to participate in a parliamentary inquiry process through submissions, hearings and the like.  It all becomes a matter of public record and our parliament, as the ultimate decision-makers on a piece of legislation are drivers of the process, rather than the political drivers of say a policy development.  The policy development that has happened to date.

I do not discount the value of a potential inquiry and will always listen to arguments put for the need or the value of having one.  In this case I am not yet convinced.  On the balance of things right now, I would be happy to support this bill through to the next Committee stage, for it to be considered.  I understand there may be potentially amendments.  I will be very interested to engage with those if there are some.  That is my brief contribution and certainly thank other members for the more extensive contributions made and I am looking forward to the summing up, to hear the answers to some of the very good questions put during those contributions.

Read more of Meg’s legislation speeches here