The PRESIDENT (10:01): I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales) (10:01): The Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Protecting Consumers from Predatory Leasing Practices) Bill 2020 is a long overdue reform. Labor Senator Doug Cameron first attempted to legislate a similar proposal in 2015 and he received support from the Senate, only to have it rejected in the House of Representatives. Since that time, calls have only grown louder and louder and the evidence has grown more and more compelling about the damage that is being done by allowing consumer lease providers to access automatic deductions from social security payments through the service known as Centrepay. This bill is timely, because the uptake of the JobSeeker payment caused by unemployment during the pandemic means there are more people now with access to Centrepay and more people in the general community who are under financial pressure and vulnerable to unscrupulous behaviour and sharp practice. Time and time again we find examples of people who are locked into consumer leases that they cannot afford, paying well above market rates for goods that they will never own, yet the government continues to ignore these concerns. Action through legislation would not be necessary if the government used its power to act administratively and enforce the existing rules. We know that this government consistently fails to act when low-income and vulnerable Australians need support. They prefer to do nothing, which again and again exposes the community to predatory lending practices.

The purpose of this bill is to amend the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, and it would remove the ability for consumer lease providers to sign up recipients of social security payments and access their payments directly through the Centrepay service. The bill removes the ability for the departmental secretary to make any deductions requested by a person from their social security payment if deductions relate to goods hired under a consumer lease entered into by that person. I repeat the point I made earlier: under existing legislation, Centrelink is enabled by section 61A of the act, which provides that if a person asks the department secretary to make deductions from instalments of a social security payment payable to the person and to pay the amounts deducted to a business or an organisation nominated by the person, the secretary may make the deductions requested by that person to that nominated business. So the main provision of this bill removes the power from the department secretary to enable these deductions from a person's social security payments if those payments are about a consumer lease.

It's worth having a think about how Centrepay works. It was established back in 1998 as a budgeting and financial capability tool to assist clients of what was then known as Centrelink, now Services Australia, by paying rent and utility bills through automatic deductions from their welfare payments. More than 600,000 people use Centrepay to pay bills, rent and ongoing expenses. But the proliferation of consumer-leasing businesses as approved Centrepay service providers is contrary to the rationale of Centrepay, which was to enable people to budget and ensure that regular bills and essential living expenses were paid directly from their welfare payment.

The purpose of Centrepay is to support recipients with payments of their expenses, but we know that these products are exorbitantly expensive. And, given the expensive nature of consumer lease products, in nearly every case they are not suitable for people in these income brackets, and the use of this service is not in line with the purposes of Centrepay. The department actually acknowledges this; Centrepay's terms and conditions are supposed to prevent its users from being exploited by banned products. To quote from the department's own policy, banned products are those which 'have significant potential for high-cost but low-value goods or services' or those which 'expose customers to unacceptable risks of financial stress or exploitation'. You couldn't imagine a descriptor that more closely aligns with the products being offered by some consumer lease providers, and it is hard to understand how Services Australia can possibly claim that many of the consumer lease providers that they have on their books right now could possibly meet this test.

The payment structure of consumer leases can cost consumers so much more in the long run than an ordinary purchase would, and it can further entrench low-income individuals, who are vulnerable, in a spiral of debt. The Salvation Army observed in evidence to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee the following:

This appears contrary to the original principles of Centrepay, which we understand were to help people on low incomes with money management. In our experience a consumer lease payment is more likely to cause money management issues.

In fact, Centrepay is effectively underwriting the business risks, the cash risks, for these consumer lease providers by providing them with a guaranteed payment stream. This money comes out of a Centrelink recipient's benefit as a priority payment. ASIC noted that although Centrepay lowers the risk of such a default on the payments for such providers, the evidence is that these companies charge people who are using Centrepay more than they do the general population. It is disgraceful that this persists, and it's disgraceful that it persists with the government and the department in full knowledge of the harm that it is doing to vulnerable people. By retaining consumer leases in the categories of goods and services eligible for Centrepay deductions, Centrepay is being used for the benefit of commercial interests, rather than in the interests of Services Australia clients who are making these payments.

Centrepay has been open to access by businesses whose products, particularly consumer leases, disadvantage consumers and have the potential to cause very serious financial harm, and there is evidence that some parts of the consumer-leasing industry actively use Centrepay to prey on the financially vulnerable. Not all consumer leases are bad and not all consumer lease providers act unethically, but the government's failure to enforce its own policy means that the dodgy consumer lease providers in the market have a free pass to use Centrepay to target pensioners and welfare recipients with unfair contracts and poor-value services.

Services Australia clients are subject to exorbitant interest charges, in some cases over 800 per cent. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission has found that the cost of household goods leased from rent-to-buy businesses can cost nearly nine times as much as the retail price of those same goods. ASIC also found, as I mentioned, that the lessors often charge higher amounts to recipients of social security payments than they advertise to other customers. And, at the end of the lease and after all that expense, the consumer does not even own the goods. Between 2013 and 2018, ASIC's enforcement against some of these businesses resulted in fines and community benefit payments of $3.4 million, and remediation to consumers through refund and debt write-offs of almost $27 million. If that is not evidence of sharp practice, of exploitative practice, of practice that is not consistent with Services Australia's own policy, it is hard to know what evidence would be necessary to have this hapless department actually act on these harmful products.

The bill follows significant campaigns by the advocates, by the non-government organisations, who are calling for further action on payday loans and consumer leases. It follows investigation after investigation by Senate committees on this issue. The 2019 report of the Senate Economics References Committee's inquiry into credit and financial services targeted at Australians at risk of financial hardship found that the benefit of consumer lease providers being registered with Centrepay is very clear: automatic deductions reduce the default for companies while also allowing them to charge the consumer for products well above the cost of the product.

Thorn Group, the parent company of Radio Rentals, noted that 52 per cent of its customers paid via Centrepay. The damage that occurs through Centrepay's deductions, because they are automatically taken out, is that payments for consumer leases are prioritised for Services Australia clients ahead of paying for things that they really need—basic goods or services like childcare. The Consumer Credit Legal Service of Western Australia told a Senate committee hearing in March 2020 that in Meekatharra community workers told them of issues that the community faces with community leases. The evidence was this, and it is disgusting: many of the sales are unsolicited. They drive around in a grey RAV, park in the street and entice passers-by to sign up. The consumer lease provider charges hundreds of dollars in delivery fees, which are also paid for from Centrepay deductions. In one case, a person mistakenly received brand new furniture meant for somebody else, then the consumer lease provider attempted to deliver that later to the correct person. However, that person no longer wanted the furniture as it had been used, and the consumer lease provider demanded that that person pay $8,000 for the furniture. But despite this, and despite countless other examples, Services Australia refuses to enforce its own policy. That policy is supposed to prohibit products that are financially exploitative. But Services Australia continues to allow the worst consumer lease providers to access vulnerable customers via Centrepay.

There are alternatives. Certain types of household goods, rental or consumer leases and other types of financial products, including short-term loan repayments to cash lenders, payday lenders and pawn brokers are already excluded from Centrepay, and this bill will ensure that Centrepay is prospectively closed to all consumer leasing companies for the same reason it is closed to payday lenders in these products. The prohibition contained in this bill will apply prospectively, meaning no individual who has entered into a consumer lease agreement using Centrepay will be required to terminate their lease as a result of the legislation, and the legislation will only prevent consumer lease agreements using Centrepay from being made in the future. If enacted, there are other payment options that would still be available to people wanting to purchase household goods. People would have the option of paying for their goods by direct credit card, bank transfer or other payment services. And Services Australia clients also have the option of signing up for a fee-free basic bank account that can let them set up and cancel a direct debit with a different service provider, including a consumer lease provider, free of charge. They wouldn't be charged an overdraw fee if they made a payment, transfer or direct debit when there was insufficient or no money in their account. But for many low-income people, the best option may be to utilise microfinance programs such as the no income loan scheme. If you're experiencing hardship and you're listening to this, I would always suggest seeing a financial counsellor who can provide independent and free advice.

I'll conclude now by saying this: Labor first introduced legislation to remove consumer leases from Centrepay in 2015 and our legislation was supported at that time in this place. Since that time, the need for change has only grown. Government members of the Economics Legislation Committee have supported excluding consumer lease providers from Centrepay, so I look forward to them backing up that commitment today by voting for this bill. Labor is once taking the initiative to ensure that this service cannot be used by consumer lease providers to exploit Australians on low incomes and, for these reasons, the bill should be passed.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (10:14): I rise to make a contribution to the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Protecting Consumers from Predatory Leasing Practices) Bill 2020. This bill is necessary because the government have failed to act. They have failed to take the necessary measures to protect low-income and financially vulnerable Australians from these predatory practices. This bill provides that the secretary may not make any deductions requested by a person from their social security payments if the deductions relate to goods hired under a consumer lease entered into by that person.

Centrepay was set up to help people receiving income support payments to pay their rent and essential bills through automatic deductions from their payments. This has clearly been abused by consumer lease providers in predatory lending practices. It has been reported on in this place, in committee inquiries and through a range of community service organisations who see their clients impacted, or adversely affected, by these predatory practices. The government won't act. In this case, it's up to Labor, which has brought this bill, to act. We have also raised this issue many, many times. It's absolutely outrageous that Services Australia—and, before that, the Department of Human Services—have not used their powers to ensure that these practices are not continued. It's very, very clear that these predatory companies are deliberately targeting vulnerable Australians on income support knowing very well that Centrepay will prioritise their payment. So it's a guaranteed source of income at absolutely outrageous interest rates. Centrepay should not be used to facilitate these appalling practices.

We know that there are many Australians on income support payments who suffer financial harm after entering into consumer leases that deduct payments through Centrepay. When consumer lease providers are able to access individuals' income support payments via Centrepay, this often results in significant financial harm. People are locked into high-cost, low-value products, which expose consumers to an unacceptable risk of financial stress or exploitation. Consumer lease providers often employ predatory tactics to target vulnerable Australians who are doing it tough, particularly financially. Consumer leases come with huge fees and interest rates that often exacerbate financial hardship. For example, a consumer lease for a baby cot and mattress from Direct Appliance Rentals costs $4,368 over 24 months, compared to only $1,487 if purchased direct from the retailer. That's nearly three times the cash price of goods—all payable via Centrepay, apparently with no questions asked by Services Australia. That's fine—no questions asked. This means that payments are made before income reaches the person's bank account. Nobody should be forced to prioritise repayments for expensive consumer leases ahead of paying for essentials like food and housing.

The Consumer Action Law Centre have witnessed consumer lease providers restart Centrepay deductions after consumers have cancelled payments without obtaining the customer's consent. They have also assisted consumers who have suffered harassment as a result of cancelling deductions, or who have had consumer lease providers continue to deduct payments through Centrepay after the relevant contracts have finished. How is that possible? Where is Services Australia? They are negligent in regard to this issue. It's been raised time and time again in this chamber and, as I said, in committee inquiries and in estimates. We were told this wasn't happening anymore; they were going to take care of it. Clearly, they have not taken care of it. The Commonwealth Ombudsman recently agreed with complaints brought forward by the Consumer Action Law Centre that Services Australia weren't adequately enforcing their own policies against consumer lease providers.

You have to ask why. Is it just because they haven't got enough staff that are able to do this—to provide this sort of oversight and to ensure that the rip-offs of people aren't happening? Or is it because they're turning a blind eye to these sorts of outrageous lending practices? This bill is necessary because Services Australia has failed—again and again and again—to respond to breaches of its own policies by consumer lease providers, therefore leaving vulnerable Australians open to exploitation. In other words, a government department is basically facilitating these rip-offs. By failing to implement their own policies, they are facilitating the rip-off, on a massive scale, of vulnerable Australians trying to survive on income support, and we all know how poor—outside of the COVID supplement—these payments are.

Centrepay access is not needed by people to obtain household goods through consumer leases, as there are other payment options available that enable people to make regular payments. If consumer leases were removed from Centrepay, people would still have the option of paying for their goods by direct debit, credit card, bank transfer, POLi or signing for fee-free basic bank accounts that do not charge default or overdraft fees. They can also apply for an interest-free loan. These are options that are obviously not explained by these consumer lease providers when they are trying to flog people these products. Because they know that if they go through Centrepay, they're not going to get pinged by Services Australia, and they can simply rip these customers off by three times—or, as we heard earlier from Senator McAllister—up to eight times the fees. These are appalling practices, and, if the government were doing the right thing, we wouldn't need to be standing in this chamber talking about it time and time again—if Services Australia were doing the job it's supposed to be doing. I think they forget that, actually, their job is to help vulnerable Australians, not to facilitate rip-offs.

The Greens support this bill. We think it's way past time that people on income support were protected from these predatory practices. It is appalling that action has not been taken earlier on this issue.

Senator AYRES (New South Wales) (10:22): I'm very happy to support the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Protecting Consumers from Predatory Leasing Practices) Bill 2020. I'm very pleased that Senator McAllister has introduced it into this place, and I only wish that the government would either support the bill or act to deal with the exploitation that Services Australia is facilitating.

Centrepay is designed and was originally set up to help low-income people manage their finances, not to facilitate the mining of profits from the household incomes of some of the most vulnerable people in Australia. More than 600,000 Australians use Centrepay to pay bills, rent and ongoing expenses through automatic deductions. It's a sound proposition, but it has been open to access by businesses whose products—particularly consumer leases—disadvantage consumers and have the potential to cause great harm to Australian families who should have the government's support. About 10 per cent of payments made through Centrepay are for consumer leases. One dollar in every $10 goes to these operations, which largely exploit vulnerable Australians. Consumer leases are an underacknowledged, underregulated and misunderstood cousin of payday loans. They're marketed to the same people—poor people struggling to get by—and they make their money from the same ruthless exploitation. Consumer leases are subject to responsible lending obligations, but there's no maximum cost of a consumer lease. Almost every time, the consumer will pay far more than the cash value of the goods.

Services Australia clients are sometimes subject to exorbitant interest charges—in some cases over 800 per cent—and Services Australia says, 'There's nothing to see here.' They sign off on these propositions and allow the money to be deducted out of people's accounts without a second look. ASIC has found that household goods leased from rent-to-buy businesses can cost nearly nine times the retail price of the same goods. With every consumer lease payment arranged through Centrepay, the government effectively endorses these practices. Our social security system should be supporting people, not endorsing a business model that creates poverty traps that many ordinary Australians can't find their way out of. The government is facilitating predatory lending and leasing practices that rip away money and take food off the kitchen tables of some of our most vulnerable families.

This bill would ensure that Centrepay is prospectively closed to consumer leasing companies for the same reasons that Centrepay is closed to payday lenders. There are safer payment options. They include no-interest loans from microfinance organisations. There are other payment services that are better regulated to avoid poverty traps, direct debit arrangements, credit card arrangements and bank transfer arrangements, all designed to support people making large purchases from a low-income base without being ripped off by predatory interest rates.

A similar bill to ban Centrepay for consumer leases, which was introduced by my predecessor Senator Doug Cameron in 2015, was the only private member's bill to pass the Senate in the 44th Parliament, with every crossbench vote. During that debate, coalition senators consistently said that there was no need for such a bill because their government was working with regulators and the Department of Human Services to stop exploitative consumer leases. Five years later, contracts continue to be signed and they continue to get the stamp of approval from the Morrison government. Five years later, the government simply haven't done enough. They are always on the side of big banks, not on the side of ordinary people. In this case, they are always on the side of some of the most predatory, unscrupulous operators in the market and never on the side of low-income families.

We have consistently advocated on this side for greater protections for consumers in response to consistent concerns about improper behaviour by consumer lease providers and payday lenders. I want to congratulate Senator Jenny McAllister for bringing this bill to this place and for doing the work that's required: talking to the advocacy organisations, talking to ordinary Australians and talking to people in the finance sector to develop a bill that's capable of resolving the problem that is so manifest for so many hundreds of thousands of Australians.

During debate on the 2015 private member's bill to close the Centrepay loophole, Senator Ruston, now a minister, said this:

I think it is incumbent on government not to interfere in people's lives to the extent where we tell them what they can buy or not buy.

What a hypocrite! That's exactly what the government does when it comes to other legislation that's before this house this week. In government senators' dissenting report to the Senate Economics References Committee report Credit and financial services targeted at Australians at risk of financial hardship, Senator Hume said:

Coalition Senators wish to emphasise that Centrepay is free and voluntary. It helps individuals to budget, and people can start, change or cancel their Centrepay deductions at any time.

Well, choices don't exist in a vacuum. Desperate people and low-income families are not free to choose between feeding their children or buying their children's school uniforms and paying off a predatory consumer lease arrangement.

Consider that, when the coronavirus pandemic hit, the payday lenders were certainly ready. By April, they were sending text messages to potential customers. One of the text messages said:

Need a COVID-19 relief loan? Fast cash loan paid in 15 Min*. No Credit Check!

In testimony to the Senate COVID committee, ASIC commissioner Sean Hughes said:

… when we get to what is being referred to colloquially as 'the cliff' at the end of the various support programs, we think there will likely be an increase in utilisation of those payday lending programs.

So it goes for these consumer lease programs. There are already millions of Australians in deep financial trouble on this government's watch. A million Australians are unemployed—we'll peak at eight per cent next year; 2.4 million Australians are unemployed or underemployed; wage growth has stalled for the life of this government, not just this year but at historic lows for the life of this government; and the wage share of national income is at record lows. Last week, an ANU study found:

Australian workers lost a total of $47bn in wages in the first eight months of the Covid-19 recession …

In particular, the recession has hurt those who completed year 12 but who do not have a university degree, workers born in non-English-speaking countries and older Australians. Are these people really free to make voluntary financial decisions? Look at the early access superannuation scheme, much trumpeted by the government in their vain effort to undermine industry superannuation. APRA's data from 22 November shows that 3.4 million Australians applied to the government's early release super scheme—their average release was $8,400—and 1.4 million Australians applied for a repeat amount, and their average release was $7,400. The total amount of money released was $35½ billion. Treasury estimates that this will rise to $42 billion by the end of the year. Note for comparison that the 2020-21 budget has only $25 billion in direct COVID-19 support measures, according to KPMG.

After taking into account inflation and the cost of living, a 25-year-old who withdraws $20,000 will be between $80,000 and $100,000 worse off in retirement. A 35-year-old who withdraws $20,000 will be at least $65,000 worse off. A total of 590,000 superannuation accounts have been drained to zero. Almost all were those of workers under 35. Senator Hume said, 'For many people who've made that decision, they know that there's a trade off, but they have made the decision to take that money today because they need to pay bills and pay down their mortgages.' It's a choice she will never have to make, a choice she is incapable of understanding. She went on to say, 'That might be a better financial decision for their personal balance sheet to take that money today rather than lock it up for the future.' It's free, it's voluntary but it's robbing Australians, especially young Australians, of a decent retirement to serve the ideological interests of those opposite.

The Liberal Party is incapable of understanding the position that low-income families are in and incapable of understanding the choices that they must make day to day, and what those opposite are doing every step of the way is making those choices harder and pushing people on a sort of 'path determinacy' towards more poverty, less resources, fewer choices and more misery for low-income families.

The people opposite only understand the economy from the perspective of financial services that prey upon poor people, and that's what they're here to represent in this chamber. That's why they voted 26 times to oppose the banking royal commission. Always on the side of the big banks, never on the side of ordinary people, in this case they are on the side of some of the worst creatures in Australian financial services, the people who make ordinary working-class low-income Australians pay eight times the value of a consumer good and rip that money out of people's pockets, facilitated by the government. When confronted with the banking royal commission, the then Treasurer, now Prime Minister, said it was nothing more than a populist whinge. He went on to say that the Labor Party was playing reckless political games with one of the core pillars of our economy. He said the only product of that approach could be to undermine confidence in the banking and financial system. What hypocrisy from the guy who was out there after the banking royal commission waving his finger and tut-tutting. The real approach of this government has never been to be on the side of ordinary Australians. It's why they are so determined to abolish responsible lending obligation laws, introduced by Labor after the GFC, which will free up banks to aggressively push credit onto their customers.

As I said before, what Minister Ruston had to say about the Centrepay loophole was:

I think it is incumbent on government not to interfere in people's lives to the extent where we tell them what they can buy or not buy.

What hypocrisy! The coalition believes that vulnerable people deserve the right to be targeted by banks, to be ripped off by consumer loans and to be forced to drain their superannuation accounts in order to get through the recession, but not to conduct the basic transactions of everyday life.

There's robodebt—a project that Scott Morrison introduced as social services minister, made a centrepiece of in his budgets as Treasurer and has failed to take responsibility for as Prime Minister. Total debts are $721 million, with 470,000 of them and 370,000 people affected. Not only do the coalition support dodgy financial schemes that prey on the poorest Australians; they created one, and it was illegal. The current line that income averaging was the issue is a fig leaf for a system that forced Centrelink recipients to prove they didn't have a debt, not the other way round. It caused immense suffering family by family—370,000 families—immense suffering.

In Steinbeck's TheGrapes of Wrath two tenant farmers debate the nature of the bank that is about to kick them off their farms. How can an institution designed by and maintained by people perform such inhuman acts? They say:

The bank is something else than men. It happens that every man in a bank hates what the bank does, and yet the bank does it. The bank is something more than men, I tell you. It's the monster. Men made it, but they can't control it.

There is something similarly cruel in the logic of this government's approach to low-income families and, in this case, consumer leasing arrangements. They have made an arrangement that makes poor people poorer and reduces their choices. What they should do is unmake it. They should support this legislation or do something to remove this cruel practice from Australian financial life.

Senator HENDERSON (Victoria) (10:37): It's my pleasure to rise and speak on the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Protecting Consumers from Predatory Leasing Practices) Bill 2020. Before I speak about this bill, I just want to make some general responses to Senator Ayres's contribution, which I found to be highly offensive and which wholly misrepresented the government's actions that it has taken in so many respects to protect low-income earners across this country. We actually, in this country, have one of the most generous welfare systems in the world. Senator Ayres's attempts to misrepresent the fine work of our government in caring for those who most need our help is most offensive. There was even a ridiculous comment about 'draining superannuation accounts' when we have given Australians the ability to take some of their superannuation during this shocking year, the year of the coronavirus pandemic—and this has been highly welcomed by so many Australians. I'm not going to stand here and accept Labor's attempts to set up some sort of class warfare. I am incredibly proud of our government's work to support low-income earners, particularly when I look at the work of this government this year: JobSeeker, JobKeeper, JobTrainer—the most massive amount of investment in Australians to get them through the coronavirus pandemic, in excess of $500 billion. We have stepped up, and we have stood side by side with all Australians during this very difficult year. It is quite telling that Senator Ayres never actually mentioned any of this in his contribution.

I want to explain the reasons why the government does not support this private member's bill that is before the Senate this morning. If this bill were passed, it would impact Centrelink customers who want to use consumer leases and who want to use Centrepay as their preferred method of payment. To give a couple of facts, currently there are 94,000 customers, or 14 per cent of customers, who use Centrepay to manage the purchase of goods using consumer leases. The value of Centrepay deductions for consumer leases represents nine per cent of all deductions made. It's really important to reiterate that entering into any consumer lease arrangement is voluntary. Using Centrepay to pay for a consumer lease is an important right of all Centrelink recipients. Deductions from a customer's payment via Centrepay can cease at any time, although this does not cease any obligations, of course, under the consumer lease that has been signed. Customers have to provide informed consent before a deduction arrangement using Centrepay can be put in place. So there are a whole range of safeguards in relation to attempts to utilise Centrepay in some sort of improper way.

All consumer lease businesses currently accessing Centrepay must have other payment options available, such as BPAY, cash or credit card. To help protect customers and not unduly restrict their access to finance, Centrepay only allows consumer leases covered by the regulatory framework under the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009, and that is a point that's not been made properly by those opposite. The regulatory framework is a very important safeguard which requires consumer lease businesses to be licensed and comply with responsible lending obligations overseen by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC. Businesses that use Centrepay need to comply and act in accordance with the Centrepay policy and terms, and consumer protection laws.

In 2015, Services Australia made changes to protect customers by removing unregulated consumer lease businesses from Centrepay. Services Australia employs a range of measures to further protect Centrepay customers and ensure businesses meet their obligations under Centrepay terms and conditions, such as ongoing compliance activity and regular monitoring. It's also important to point out that many Centrelink customers have limited access to microfinance. So, if there is an emergency, such as the need to replace a fridge, a Centrelink customer can use consumer leases to address that issue quickly. They can then choose whether and how to make those regular payments using, of course, Centrepay.

The government takes its responsibility to consumers very seriously. Centrepay is a free and voluntary service which allows people to pay bills and expenses as regular deductions from their Centrelink payments. People can start, change or cancel their Centrepay deductions at any time. To help protect customers and not unduly restrict their access to finance, as I've made very clear, there are very important safeguards included in access to Centrepay arrangements. It is a very important bill-paying service to support income support customers. Mostly, the Centrepay mechanism is used for housing and utilities costs, so obviously this is a very, very important scheme.

Since it was introduced in 1999, Centrepay has grown and expanded into more than just a means of paying a bill. In the last five years, 46 per cent of all Centrelink customers have used Centrepay for more than one service reason, suggesting it is actually used as a financial management tool. It's used actively by government and non-government entities, including the likes of state governments for court fine repayments or not-for-profits offering low- and no-interest loans. The categories of goods and services approved for Centrepay include a cost for accommodation, education and employment, health, utilities, household goods, travel and transport, social and recreational purposes, legal and professional services and financial products. So Centrepay is a very important mechanism to assist customers in managing expenses which are consistent with the purpose of welfare payments and which have the effect of reducing financial risk and also supporting financial management.

In the 2019-20 year an average of 648,000 customers per month used the service to make 26 million Centrepay deductions worth $2.76 billion to approximately 14,000 approved businesses. Around 75 per cent of the moneys disbursed through Centrepay are for accommodation and utilities. This is the core foundation of Centrepay—that it is voluntary and designed for regular ongoing deductions. I will also make the very important point that it is since 2001 that consumer leases for household goods have been allowed under Centrepay. It is only in the last couple of years that Labor has decided that this is an issue. For all those years Labor was in power, it never took any appropriate action—one can only assume because it didn't see that there was the need.

In 2015 the then Department of Human Services introduced the new Centrepay policy and terms that excluded unregulated consumer leases for household goods and also funeral insurance. So we understood where Australians were being improperly targeted and we took that action. Unregulated leases are those exempt under the National Consumer Credit Protection Act and are less than four months or indefinite in their duration. Due to the gap in accessibility for some customers to access microfinance and money for emergency, regulated consumer leases remained on Centrepay as a viable option. I think that's really important. This is not necessarily the first port of call. Anyone engaging in any sort of consumer lease does need to be properly informed, and there are appropriate mechanisms to ensure that that happens. But payday lenders, short-term loan repayments to cash lenders, pawnbrokers and buy-now pay-later schemes like Afterpay are excluded from Centrepay and have never had access to Centrepay. That's a really important safeguard. We understand that there are some operators in the market which are predatory and which will try to take advantage of more vulnerable Australians. That's why the likes of payday lenders, short-term loan repayments to cash lenders and pawnbrokers do not have access to Centrepay.

But I'll tell you who does have access to Centrepay: the Good Shepherd Microfinance no-interest loan scheme. It commenced using Centrepay for repayment of these loans in 2001. The Good Shepherd Microfinance scheme is a wonderful scheme. There are also no-interest loans provided by other welfare or not-for-profit organisations like the Salvos or St Vincent de Paul, and they also use Centrepay. So anyone who does need to access low-interest or no-interest loans because of an emergency or because of a dire need should absolutely look to these very credible providers to ensure that they get the best deal in the market.

It's also important to reiterate that Services Australia undertakes assessment of business applications for Centrepay and compliance audits of approved businesses. That's why that category of lenders is excluded. It's because the compliance work is done and we make sure that those safeguards are put in place. Approved businesses must meet and maintain essential criteria. And they're tough; the criteria are tough. The assessment process needs to consider whether the business conducts its operations in a manner that is lawful, ethical and does not take unfair advantage of customers. It needs to consider the past behaviour of the business and the business representatives; information provided by regulatory bodies, consumers, consumer groups or law enforcement agencies; previous dealings with the business; and complaints made against the business. So the bottom line is that where there is a provider which has a poor or dubious record or has engaged in improper conduct—including conduct which may have given rise to issues under the law—then Centrepay will not approve them. But, if there is a credible organisation, why should Australians be denied access to consumer leases and using Centrepay to manage their repayments for those emergency items? Otherwise, many Australians could be placed in a position that is even more vulnerable.

I also want to make the point that, where a business breaches Centrepay policies—including other laws and regulations—the agency will review the business and reconsider its ongoing approval for Centrepay. So, once a Centrepay provider is approved, it doesn't stop there. There is an ongoing obligation to ensure that all businesses which provide a Centrepay option are acting in the best interests of consumers. In the 2019-20 financial year, 326 compliance audits were completed. The Centrepay policy and terms retain the discretion for Services Australia to not approve or to suspend or withdraw the approval of a business if, in its opinion, the business or representatives have not conducted or are not likely to conduct themselves in a lawful manner, have failed to comply with the Centrepay framework or are, obviously, subject to investigation or where other enforcement proceedings are brought against them. They're just some of the reasons. So Services Australia is playing a very important role to safeguard consumers. Those are many of the reasons why the government does not support this bill.

Senator GALLACHER (South Australia) (10:52): I too would like to make a contribution to the debate on the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Protecting Consumers from Predatory Leasing Practices) Bill 2020. To take a leaf out of Senator Henderson's book, I'll take exception to some of the comments that have been made from the other side in the same way that she made them about Senator Ayres.

She did manage to reference ASIC. ASIC has found that household goods leased from rent-to-buy businesses can cost nearly nine times the retail price of the same goods. So, in that environment, where you pointed to the regulator and said, 'They're over it; they're across it; people can't go astray here,' the contribution from ASIC is that it's probably going to cost you 800 per cent more if you go down this path of rent to buy.

I think it's really instructive that the other comment was about superannuation and how the government has done everybody an enormous favour by allowing them to access their superannuation early. To be fair, it has given them cash in their pockets today, this week or this month, but it has taken a substantial chunk out of their pockets at retirement. It has reduced the potential lump sum exponentially. It has reduced their retirement expectation exponentially. And, if you're a welfare recipient, it may well have compromised your ability to actually get welfare. If you have a remaining amount in your bank account, that would be listed as an asset and may well complicate your access to Centrelink and the like.

This is a government that had an algorithm and that went out there and punished enormous numbers of people. Indeed, there may even have been some suicides and the like from the pressure that was put on people with the government's algorithm. They backed off and paid $1.2 billion in compensation. Why haven't they got an algorithm to have a bit of a tickle around here and see who is providing the best value for money in this space? I accept that, if it's 40 degrees and you haven't got a fridge, you're going to get one somehow. You're going to rent, borrow or buy one, or perhaps use an untoward means of getting it. If your children haven't got a cold drink of water or milk, you're going to get a fridge. You're not going to sit back and say: 'What is the best way of doing that? Will I get three quotes?' No, you'll get a fridge within a day.

Let's be fair. I have had little experience in this space. I've been encouraged by the contributions of Senator Siewert, Senator McAllister and Senator Pratt to go out and do a bit of digging. If you go and get a briefing from a Centrelink social worker, they'll tell you some really interesting things. I have had briefings in areas of Adelaide which are chronically underprivileged, where there are three generations of unemployed people. One contribution has never, ever gone out of my head. A social worker told me, 'Senator, we're really worried about the grandmothers.' I said 'The grandmothers?' They said, 'Yes, because 16 and 16 makes 32, and we have people here on welfare who are 33 years old and are already grandmothers.' Some of them made a bad decision once, or not a bad decision but a decision that affected their whole life: they had a child at 16. That precluded them from continuing their education or entering into useful work, and sometimes that goes on and on generationally. The social worker said: 'We really worry about the people that are facing another 30 years of Centrelink. They don't make good decisions; they need education.'

I came across a constituent who had had a successful career in business and ended up doing some good work at a bank and at an air services company. When he retired he went and volunteered for the Good Shepherd organisation. He went into homes, examined budgets, gave counselling and pointed the way forward. The no-interest loan scheme is incredibly good. He explained it by saying, 'We look at people's finances and tell them that there are other ways of doing it.' He tells them: 'We need to clear that debt and then you can go and buy the washing machine of your choice, the fridge of your choice and the TV of your choice. But we need to do some really hard work first and we need to get you in a position where you can get a thousand dollars to go out and do a bit of shopping.' He would then say to them: 'Go out into the marketplace but don't commit. Come back to me and we'll have a look at your circumstances, your budget and your situation and we'll try and get you on a path to success.' Some people are very successful at this. They appreciate the experience of learning from their budget, going into the marketplace and getting quotes. There is a great organisation, The Good Guys, that looks at this space and says, 'What everybody else does we'll do better.' They have a relationship with no-interest loan providers. People actually learnt from the experience. They learnt that it was expensive to rent to buy. They learnt that it was expensive in these other areas and they became much more successful and very proud of their own achievements, because they are actually budgeting and making decisions about their life instead of reacting to what was happening in their life.

Full credit to the not-for-profits in this no-interest loan area. This government should be giving them more money. If you are really serious about getting people off welfare, you need to let them control their life, and the key to controlling your life is being able to budget. Even on a meagre subsistence allowance like a Centrelink payment, being able to budget is the key to re-entry to the workforce, re-entry to education and a better life. Let's be fair: these people don't have a lot of support. If they had the family support that I'm fortunate enough to be able to provide or that my son and daughter are fortunate enough to be able to provide, people wouldn't get too far away from education, contribution to the economy and success. But these people are not in that situation. There are areas in Australia, well known, well documented, where people are subsisting.

If this government could take a robodebt attitude and try and bang out big bills all around the country, if it could take a slightly less adventurous but perhaps a more private equity approach and put a small amount of money, even $100 million, into no-interest loans and run an algorithm and see that it is successful, then perhaps it could even rejuvenate some of these areas. What we do know is that, worldwide, women, in particular, are incredibly good and successful at managing small loans. It's been proven in Pakistan, India and many developing countries that, if you give women who have responsibility for children and the family a small amount of money, they will become productive. They can articulate it, work it out and go forward with a reasonable degree of success. Unfortunately, there are many areas in Australia where underprivilege is embedded.

I thought Senator Henderson's contribution, when she referred to ASIC, was hilarious. Isn't it Telstra that's just been found to have used predatory pricing in Indigenous communities? Isn't it Telstra that has been found to have sold mobile phone plans that were incredibly overpriced and disadvantageous to Indigenous Australia? Where's ASIC in that space? Are they having a look? I think it's a free-for-all. I don't accept Senator Henderson's contribution that these people are on the job, looking at protecting Indigenous communities and looking at protecting welfare recipients from predatory behaviour. If it's the case that ASIC has found that these rent-to-buy businesses can charge nearly nine times the retail price for the cost of goods, then the only people who would enter that space are those who are completely vulnerable or completely desperate. No-one would knowingly go and pay nine times the price of an article in the marketplace.

What we've got here is a party that is opposing what I think is quite a sensible proposal to look carefully at who has access to Services Australia clients to make sure that they're not being preyed upon. It's pretty straightforward. It's not rocket science. I'm struggling to understand how anybody could actually support rent-to-buy schemes. It's incredible. If we were really serious about Centrelink and social security recipients, we would be giving them some free financial advice. We would be encouraging more not-for-profits. We should be stacking this area with more finance. We should measure it very carefully to work out exactly what does work: what contribution in what area is capable of moving people onto a better pathway? One of my constituents told me: 'This is really good work. You can get a great deal of satisfaction out of moving people incrementally towards an education pathway or into the workforce through a proper budget in the home. These people want no less than anybody else. I don't blame them for making poor decisions, because, if I didn't have a TV and I was on Centrelink payments and someone said, 'You can have one for seven bucks a week,' I'd be there, just like anybody else would be, and I'd count the cost later.

I think the contribution from the other side is thin. When you look at the superannuation area, people are being told, 'You can have 20,000 grand now,' and those most in need of it will take it. I accept that. But they kick themselves an own goal on a lower lump sum or a lower retirement future. If they do it in as a Centrelink recipient and it reduces their ability to claim a payment—which is a bit of a contest at the moment—they've doubly kicked an own goal. The government doesn't tell them any of that.

In summation, I really do think that everybody should support this area. When you meet social workers at Centrelink and get briefings, you see that people are struggling and they need more help. The help they need is not just another handout; they need to be lifted up the ladder. The help they need is to have a proper household budget, to be able to identify previous mistakes and not make them again, and to be offered no-interest loans to get them into a space that will allow them to take pride in their home, their children and their education. I cannot get the contribution from that social worker in the northern suburbs of Adelaide out of my head. They said: 'We're really worried about the grandmothers, because they face a lifetime on Centrelink payments, never having had a decent education and never having had the opportunity to contribute in a decent job, and all because they arguably made a poor decision when they were very young and vulnerable, or someone made that decision and then abandoned them.'

We've really got to do better in this space, and I don't know why we would argue about a product that can cost nine times an item's value being unsuitable for people who can barely afford to pay for their food, clothing and rent. Why would we argue about that? But we are. We hear the contributions from those on the other side, including Senator Henderson, from whom, frankly, I expected a more considered and more meaningful contribution, because her public persona and reputation is that she's a fair-minded person. The defence of this stuff really intrigues me. To defend it when their own policeman on the job, ASIC, found it can cost nine times an item's value is completely mystifying. I suppose that's politics and that's what keeps this place going round and round, but, if we're going to make a difference in this space, I think we have to be completely innovative.

I'm probably a heretic on my side too, because I don't accept that people should be allowed to live their lives on Centrelink payments. I think there should be some strong responsibilities to the community. I know that if we took a more private equity approach to this space, where we became more adventurous and less risk averse, we would probably move a lot of people off Centrelink payments, and we should move a lot of people off them. We do know, from worldwide experience, that small loans, particularly to women with families, are a very successful way of creating empowerment and creating better educational opportunities and better outcomes financially, because people are intrinsically smart enough and determined enough to feed their families and be successful. My advice to any government would be that you do no-interest loans to get people back to square. You fund that area and get people back on the books, and then you look at moving them, through proper financial advice, proper advice about education and proper advice about how to get into the job market. You'd do that exponentially, because it is no life on Centrelink payments. It isn't a life where you can take a trip away. You're stuck in a repeating cycle of debt and bills to pay from the next contribution. Welfare recipients have fewer decisions in respect of their autonomy and the life that they should be able to lead, because there are no funds to do it.

So my contribution would be: pass this bill and then get to work on making the whole thing better by taking more of a private equity approach. Do some innovative projects in this space, measure how many people you get back into education and back into work, and work at reducing the taxpayer bill in this area, because we can do it if we work collegiately and responsibly together.

Senator CHANDLER (Tasmania) (11:07): I rise to address the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Protecting Consumers from Predatory Leasing Practices) Bill 2020, which the government will not be supporting today. If passed, this bill would adversely impact Centrelink customers wanting to engage in a consumer lease and prevent them from using Centrepay as their preferred payment method.

As my colleague Senator Henderson has outlined, Centrepay was introduced in 1999 as a bill-paying service to help Australians on income support to pay for housing and utilities costs. Centrepay helps welfare recipients to manage their expenses for priority services and goods and reduces financial risk for clients by allowing for regular deductions to be made from their welfare payments. During 2019-20, an average of 648,000 customers per month used the service to make deductions from their welfare payments to pay their bills. It is important to note that Centrepay can only be used to pay for approved services and to approved businesses. Bill expenses range from accommodation, education and training expenses to health, household utility expenses, transport, legal services and household goods. The vast majority, around 75 per cent, of the deductions made through Centrepay are for accommodation and utilities expenses.

Since 2001, consumer leases for household goods have been allowed under Centrepay. Many Centrelink customers have limited access to microfinance, and the provision since 2001 gives them greater options to make essential household purchases. For example, if an essential household item, such as a fridge or washing machine, breaks down, a Centrelink customer can use consumer leases to purchase a new appliance quickly and easily. The option is available for them to engage in a consumer lease. The Centrelink customer has a choice whether they want to arrange for regular payments for the lease, including if they want to use Centrepay as a way of making payments on their purchase. Deductions for a customer's payment via Centrepay can cease at any time, although this does not cease any obligations under the consumer lease that they have signed.

The inclusion of consumer leases since 2001 has given consumers a viable option to purchase essential household goods when access to microfinance and money may be difficult to secure. There are 94,000 customers who are making use of Centrepay to manage the purchase of their goods using consumer leases, but, as I've said, if passed, this bill we are debating here today would impact those Centrelink customers who want to use consumer leases and who want to use Centrepay as their preferred payment method.

It is important to note that a number of changes have been adopted since 2001 to better protect Centrelink customers using Centrepay. In 2015 new Centrepay policies and terms were introduced by the then Department of Human Services to exclude unregulated consumer leases for household goods and funeral insurance. In early 2017 all unregulated leases were removed from Centrepay. To help protect consumers and not unduly restrict their access to finance, Centrepay only allows consumer leases covered by the regulatory framework under the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009.

The regulatory framework requires consumer lease businesses to be licensed and to comply with responsible lending obligations overseen by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, or ASIC. Businesses that use Centrepay need to comply and act in accordance with the Centrepay policy and terms and consumer protection laws. As my colleague Senator Henderson said earlier, these are incredibly important safeguards for those Centrelink customers using Centrepay, contrary to what those on the opposition benches might have been contributing in debate this morning.

Services Australia undertakes assessment of business applications for Centrepay and compliance audits of approved businesses. This is another safeguard that is in place regarding this policy. Approved businesses must meet and maintain essential criteria. The assessment process may consider whether the business conducts its operations in a manner that is lawful, ethical and does not take unfair advantage of customers; the past behaviour of the business and business representatives; information provided by regulatory bodies, consumers, consumer groups and law enforcement agencies; previous dealings with the business; and any complaints made against the business. Most identified noncompliance is remedied as part of the review process. If a business is unable to remedy the identified non-compliance concerns in addressing the criteria I've just outlined, they are either partially or fully suspended from the Centrepay program until they comply or until a decision is made by the agency to withdraw their Centrepay approval.

Whilst businesses are required to meet the Centrepay policy and terms they are also regulated through their industry's legislation and relevant regulators, such as ASIC and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, or the ACCC, as it is usually known. The agency considers any noncompliance or active investigations with these regulatory bodies and, where notified, will review the business's ongoing approval. Where a business breaches Centrepay policies, including other laws and regulations, the agency will review the business and reconsider its ongoing approval for Centrepay. So again there are some important safeguards in place to ensure that the businesses that Centrelink customers are dealing with under Centrepay are behaving appropriately and are not taking advantage of their customers.

In conclusion, the government takes its responsibilities to consumers very seriously, but this bill proposed by Labor today would only reduce the payment options available to Centrelink customers to pay for household items. This would have an adverse impact on customers where an essential item, such as a fridge or washing machine, needs to be replaced as a matter of urgency. The option to engage in a consumer lease has given consumers a viable option to purchase essential household goods when access to microfinance and other financial money streams may be difficult to secure. The Centrelink customer has a choice as to whether they want to arrange for regular payments for the lease, including if they want to use Centrepay as a way of making payments on their purchase.

As I said, in 2015 new Centrepay policy and terms were introduced which excluded unregulated consumer leases. To help protect customers and not unduly restrict their access to finance, Centrepay only allows consumer leases covered by the regulatory framework under the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009. The regulatory framework requires consumer lease businesses to be licensed and comply with responsible lending obligations overseen by ASIC. Services Australia undertakes assessments of business applications for Centrepay and compliance audits of approved businesses. Like I said, the government takes its responsibilities to consumers very seriously, none more so than in the space of Centrepay, where, as I've outlined today and as my colleague Senator Henderson has outlined and as I suspect other colleagues will also detail, there is a strong framework of safeguards in place to ensure that consumers are not taken advantage of and to ensure that this policy process operates in a fair and reasonable way.

But this bill that we're debating here today, the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Protecting Consumers from Predatory Leasing Practices) Bill 2020, would only reduce the payment options available to Centrelink customers to pay for household items. In effect, it removes choice, and that is something that we, as Liberals, should always be incredibly cognisant of and, I believe, should always seek to protect. So, on that basis, I urge the Senate not to support the bill.

Senator ANTIC (South Australia) (11:16): I rise to speak in relation the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Protecting Consumers from Predatory Leasing Practices) Bill 2020. This is a bill that the government does not support. The purpose of this private member's bill, as described in the explanatory memorandum, is purported to be amending:

… the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 to provide that the department secretary may not make any deductions requested by a person from their social security payments if the deductions relate to goods hired under a consumer lease entered into by the person

But, if passed, the bill would impact Centrelink customers who want to use consumer leases and who want to use Centrepay as their preferred payment method. This bill, in my respectful submission, fits comfortably in the remit of the statement: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Centrepay is a free and voluntary service that allows people to pay their bills and expenses as regular deductions from their Centrelink payment to approved businesses. People can start, change or cancel their Centrepay deductions at any time. As we heard earlier this morning, it was introduced in 1999, effectively as a bill-paying service to support customers in paying household and utility costs. As the deduction is taken out before the income support payment is made, the program is designed to reduce the default risk for the customers as well the businesses themselves. It's unique in this respect, compared to other financial products such as, for example, direct debit. Since this time, Centrepay has grown and expanded into more than just a means to pay a bill. In fact, in the last five years, 46 per cent of all Centrepay customers have used the service for more than one service reason, suggesting that it's actually being used as a financial management tool. The categories of goods and services that are approved for Centrepay use include, but are not necessarily limited to: accommodation, education and employment, health, utility costs, household goods, travel and transport costs, social and recreational costs, sometimes legal and professional services costs, and, indeed, the costs of financial products. Around 75 per cent of the monies dispersed through Centrepay are actually for accommodation and utilities.

Payday lenders, short-term repayments and schemes known as buy-now pay-later schemes are actually excluded from Centrepay and have never had access to the scheme. It's important to note that all consumer lease businesses which are actually accessing Centrepay must have other payment options available, such as cash or credit card. Those using Centrepay are not forced to do so. It's actively used by government and non-government entities, such as state governments for matters that include court fine repayments, and sometimes by not-for-profit organisations offering low- and no-interest loans.

We know that there are presently 94,000 customers, or 14 per cent of customers, who use Centrepay to manage the purchase of goods using consumer leases. The value of Centrepay deductions for consumer leases actually represents nine per cent of all of the deductions made under this scheme. Entering into any consumer lease and using Centrepay to make payments due under a consumer lease are, as we've said, voluntary. Deductions from the customer's payment can cease at any time, although this doesn't necessarily cease obligations pursuant to the consumer lease itself. Customers must provide informed consent before a deduction arrangement using Centrepay can actually be put in place. To help protect customers and so as not to unduly restrict access to their finance, Centrepay only allows consumer leases which are covered by the regulatory framework under the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009. It requires consumer lease businesses to be properly licensed and to properly comply with responsible lending obligations as overseen by the regulatory body, ASIC, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.

The history of accessing consumer leases is now 20 years old. Since 2001, consumer leases for household goods have been allowed. On 1 July 2015 the then Department of Human Services introduced a new Centrepay policy and terms which excluded unregulated consumer leases for household goods and funeral insurance. Unregulated leases are those which are exempt from the National Consumer Credit Protection Act and are less than four months or indefinite in duration. By 17 February 2017, all leases that were not regulated were removed from the scheme. Due to the gap in accessibility for some consumers to access microfinance and money for emergencies, regulated consumer leases now remain on Centrepay as a viable option to acquire household goods.

The government takes its responsibility to consumers very, very seriously. While Labor will tell you that this bill helps protect consumers and ensures low-income, vulnerable Australians are not exploited, they seem to have missed the crucial outcome of this bill were it to be passed; that is, the bill would allow for discrimination against people who are currently on Centrelink—individuals who may not otherwise have access to payment terms because of this predicament—or people on lower incomes who may lack a credit rating or have a low credit rating. I'll remind this chamber that, unfortunately, many of those who are recipients of welfare may actually be unable to access some forms of credit, such as credit cards. For many, regulated consumer leasing is one of the very, very few ways to obtain essential household goods in an expedient manner. Often we're talking about very basic, fundamental items like a fridge, a washing machine, a freezer—something of that nature. Any bill that would seek to discriminate and result in the unfair and detrimental treatment of those in our society who are most in need, purely because of their financial predicament, shouldn't be supported.

Labor argues in support of the bill by alleging that Centrepay is being used for the benefit of consumer leases or commercial contracts rather than in the interests of Services Australia customers, but this, of course, ignores the careful scrutiny of businesses taking part in the Centrepay program. Services Australia undertakes an assessment of business applications for Centrepay and compliance audits of approved businesses. Approved businesses have to meet and maintain essential criteria, and the assessment process may, in fact, consider items such as whether the business conducts its operations in a manner that is lawful and ethical and does not take advantage of customers. It must take into consideration the past behaviour of the business and the business's representatives. It has to take into account information provided by regulatory bodies, consumers or consumer groups, or law enforcement agencies, and it has to take into account previous dealings with the business and any complaints that have been made against the business. So this process is beyond rigorous. In the 2019-20 financial year, 326 compliance audits were completed, and most identified that noncompliance is actually remedied as part of the review process. If a business is unable to remedy the identified noncompliance concerns, it is either partially or fully suspended from the program, up to the point at which it complies or a decision is made by the agency to withdraw its approval.

Whilst businesses are required to meet the policy and the terms, they're also regulated through the industry's legislation and relevant regulators such as ASIC or the ACCC. These agencies will consider any noncompliance or active investigations with these regulatory bodies and, when notified, they'll review the business's ongoing approval. Where a business breaches Centrepay policy, including other laws and regulations, the agency reviews the business and, as I've said earlier, reconsiders its ongoing approval for Centrepay.

The policy terms and conditions of Centrepay retain the discretion for Services Australia:

… to not approve, or to withdraw or suspend the approval of a Business if, in the Agency's opinion, any of the following apply:

a. the Business (or its Business Representative) has not conducted, or is unlikely to conduct, its operations in a lawful manner

b. the Business (or its Business Representative) has conducted, or may potentially conduct, its operations in a manner that is unethical, inconsistent with the Centrepay objective or takes unfair advantage of Customers

c. the Business (or its Business Representative) fails to, or is unlikely to, fully comply with the Centrepay Framework

d. making payments to the Business through Centrepay would adversely affect the reputation of the Agency or the Australian Government

e. the Business (or its Business Representative):

i. is under investigation by a Regulatory Body or law enforcement agency

…   …   …

iii. has had enforcement proceedings brought against it …

So there are a range of different approaches and matters to be taken into account by Services Australia. The process is clearly extraordinarily rigorous. Services Australia will refer customers to programs such as the NILS, the No Interest Loan Scheme, or to set up other payment options to purchase. Services Australia staff also refer customers to the relevant support services for financial assistance and counselling.

I remind those in this place that entering any consumer lease arrangement is, as we have said and as some of my colleagues have said earlier today, a voluntary matter, and it wouldn't be for government to interfere unduly with one's personal choice. To do so would not be fitting in a society like ours. There can be little doubt that Centrepay has a proven track record of being a valuable bill-paying service that assists many Centrelink recipients with their ongoing expenses and their ongoing financial management, and as a government it's our view that we should aim to have as little interference in people's lives as possible.

Services Australia has provided targeted messages to Centrepay businesses to remind them of their obligations under this scheme. They remind customers to check their Centrepay deductions regularly. Particularly when there may not be a service at the moment to provide links to manage your money, Services Australia provides useful tools and information. In addition to this, Services Australia operates the Financial Information Service, or FIS, which is there to help Australians make informed decisions about their finances. The FIS, the Financial Information Service, helps people to understand a range of implications, including how financial products work and how they affect government payments. It helps them to understand the results of their decisions in the short term and in the longer term; to prepare for their retirement even while they're still working, which, of course, we know is critical; to access other resources; and to access the details of other groups that can assist.

In conclusion, it is my view—it's the government's view—that the Centrepay scheme must maintain its core features, including the voluntary nature of the program, the issue of consumer consent and the strong focus on the need for essential items in a timely manner in low-income households, such as utilities, essential household goods, as I've said earlier, and white goods. For these reasons and more, the government does not support this bill.

Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (11:30): As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I want to discuss this Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Protecting Consumers from Predatory Leasing Practices) Bill 2020 that aims to put a stop to some predatory lenders. It's a topic new to me and I'm not familiar with it, and on the surface it seems a laudable aim to protect people with disability or cognitive impairment, or who are otherwise disadvantaged. I feel disappointed and sad about predators who lend, taking advantage of vulnerable people. It doesn't meet my need for integrity, fairness and compassion. Yet, while One Nation support the intent of this bill, we do not support the solution. Our office called Senator McAllister's office, and apparently there's been no research regarding the number of predatory lenders; the bill is apparently based on an unsighted ASIC report some years ago, lacking data.

This bill, as other speakers have pointed out, would stop all arrangements in a way that means some worthy and capable people may miss out altogether on necessary goods such as fridges. This bill would therefore disadvantage the people it is designed to protect unless there's a better solution in place. High-risk borrowers—people on low incomes, disadvantaged—mean high risk to lenders. That means high interest rates. In fact, these lenders may be the only alternative some people have. This bill impinges on a person's right to make those arrangements. There are some lenders in these circumstances who are decent people. There are alternatives to funding, and these need to be understood.

In short, this bill is too blunt an instrument. We believe that the issue that this bill attempts to address needs to be addressed through the Treasury, through consumer law. We're expecting that the responsible lending law that the government has circulated in draft form will address this in a better way for all Australians, not just those on Centrelink payments. So we won't be supporting this bill, and we look forward to the government addressing this through the Treasury, with a proper bill based on consumer protection.

Senator STOKER (Queensland) (11:33): I rise to speak in the debate on the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Protecting Consumers from Predatory Leasing Practices) Bill 2020 that has been put forward by Senator McAllister and her team. The purpose of their bill, as is stated, is to amend the Social Security Act to prevent Centrepay deductions from being made in relation to consumer leases. For those people in the gallery who may not be familiar with consumer leases, they don't relate to property in the real sense. It's not about your house or your apartment. It's about taking out a lease to get yourself a refrigerator or a washing machine—the kinds of appliances that can be really important for people's lives going to plan. They relate to generally smaller sums than the kinds of leases that we associate with real property.

The government doesn't support this bill and, I would suggest, with good reason. It brings into sharp focus the approaches of different parties to some really fundamental issues. We have on the one hand some people in our community who can be vulnerable and who, by reason of their being a recipient of Centrelink payments rather than somebody who is in work, can face some real challenges in meeting all of the expenses they might incur or wish to make in their lives. On the other hand, however, we face the important value that is the right of individuals to choose what they do with their money and to do so without governments telling them what they are and aren't entitled to spend their money on. They are entitled to the opportunity to learn from participation and from experience how to, and whether they wish to, interact with all the different types of items for sale and all the different types of products in the financial space that are available to them.

When we think of financial literacy as being one of the real problems, where people find themselves in something of a cycle of hardship, financial literacy is a really big part of both the problem and the way out. One is more likely to end up in circumstances where they need assistance if they have lower financial literacy, but, at the same time, if we take away the right of all individuals to make choices about what they want to do with their money they are denied the opportunity to build their financial literacy by gradual experience. So we need to make sure that the way we handle this area of law takes into account the need to balance the risk that a person might be exploited by an unscrupulous provider against the really important value that a person should be able to choose and should be able to learn by participation. They are both really important things.

This government has done what I would suggest is a good job of balancing those considerations. Rather than taking away the ability of people to engage in leases or enter into different financial products that might suit their individual needs, despite the fact that they are in receipt of social security assistance, we instead took the step of conducting a detailed review from 2013 to 2015 of the way that these types of products are offered and assisted in their delivery by payment using the Centrepay service. In doing so it was this government, importantly, for the record—not those opposite, who did nothing about it when they were in government, but this government—that knocked off hundreds and hundreds of loan shark like businesses that were indeed unscrupulous in the way they operated in this field. One example that was quite confronting to see was that some of the unscrupulous vendors who have since been pushed out of this system—they have not been able to participate since 2015—would go into Aboriginal communities and sell insurance products, like funeral insurance, to 10-year-old kids. It isn't fair, it isn't sensible and it's not the kind of thing that meets what I would suggest is our sense of right and wrong. The consequence of that review and that process, which I understand was led by both now Minister Payne and now Minister Robert, was that over 1,000 providers that were at that time registered to deliver services that were paid for through Centrepay were kicked out of the system. I think that says something about the rigour that has been applied to this sector.

It is worth turning our minds to this: what exactly is Centrepay? Those people who haven't had the experience of being in receipt of social security benefits may not have come into contact with it. For those listening from home, Centrepay is a free service. It is offered as part of the suite of tools offered by Services Australia, formerly known as the Department of Human Services, to help people who are in receipt of a welfare benefit to manage their money as they grow their financial literacy. The way it works is it allows a person to set up a whole series of direct debits, if they wish—they can use it as many or as few times as they want to. It means that they can set it up so that bills, utilities, rent and the like come out of their Centrelink payment, and then what remains, once all of those important and core expenses of life are taken care of, is deposited into their bank account for use.

Centrepay was created in 1999 and in the last five years it was used, at some point, by 46 per cent of all people who are Centrelink customers. That speaks to something of the need for it and it speaks to its usefulness as people are going through a phase in their lives when they are getting hold of their financial situation and doing what they can to build financial literacy. It means, for those people who use it, that all of the essentials of life are covered before the remainder of the payment is deposited into their account. It's really important for making sure that a person in receipt of social security benefits is able to manage their household budget well.

The categories of goods and services that are covered by Centrepay are quite broad. It can cover accommodation, education and employment, health services, utilities, household goods, travel and transport, even some social and recreational type activities, legal and professional services in some circumstances, and a range of financial products. In the financial year just gone, there was an average of 648,000 customers a month who used the service, and they used it to make 26 million Centrepay deductions worth over $2.76 billion to approximately 14,000 approved businesses. So you can see that it is really quite a widely used service that is important in the lives of many Australians.

Now we're coming up to Christmas, and I think it's worth acknowledging that, for people who are on social security benefits, it can be a time when it's tough to manage your money. Controlling and staying on top of managing your income, particularly when you've got dependants, too, can be really difficult. But Centrepay gives control back to people so that they never miss the fundamentals. They never miss paying rent. They never lose the roof over their heads.

It is the kind of responsible approach to managing money that this government tries to bring to everything. We want to empower people who are in receipt of government assistance—and of course we hope that that will be short-lived; we hope that people will be able to make the transition back into work as soon as possible, as soon as their life circumstances and the job market permits. But we take the approach that it is important to empower people as individuals to make the best possible choices for their own future, because what the best choice is for you to do with your money, Madam Acting Deputy President, might well be different from what is right for me or, indeed, right for every other Australian. We'll all have different priorities and different values, and different things we want to achieve, and it would really be quite arrogant for any government to think that it knows and it should decide what a person is allowed to do with their money. Instead, this voluntary, free service helps people manage the pressure of their competing priorities so that not only do the fundamentals get paid—the rent gets paid, the lights stay on; all that can happen—but also they're able to make some choices for themselves about what they want to do with the rest of their money. The success of Centrepay is really about the fact that it's voluntary.

When we strengthen the help that's available to individuals who are receiving government assistance, who are developing their financial literacy, we are also strengthening that help on the other side by making sure that the system is only able to be accessed by those who participate according to clear and defined rules of the game, which means that the suppliers who receive payments through Centrepay have to comply with quite rigorous standards of auditing. They have to sign up to a code about how they interact with and treat the people from whom they are receiving payments through Centrepay. Importantly, they have to work with them to hear on a regular basis how they can continually deliver better outcomes for customers.

So this is really a program of consumer consent with a focus on the basics. It's entirely consistent with that that a person who finds themselves in a situation where one of the basics they need to operate is on the blink—whether that's a washing machine that they must have as a matter of urgency to get the kids' school uniforms clean and for them to get on with their education, for instance—is able to make decisions for themselves about what works best. Some people will be able to just go down to Harvey Norman and pick up a new machine, but that's not the case for everyone. For someone who can't access microfinance, for instance—that's part of one of the really low- or no-interest programs that already exist—the existence of consumer leases can be a really important resource. And, provided it's done within the bounds of ethics, as this government has sought to make sure is the case by all of the different types of regulated leases that are available, it gets the balance right between giving people choice and making sure they're not exploited. Who are we as a parliament to tell the mother who needs to get uniforms washed for their kids for school so that they can participate in their education for the coming week that, no, they can't go down and get themselves a washing machine on a plan? This isn't a buy-now pay-later arrangement; this is the rental of an item, but it can be just what's needed to fill a hole in a person's laundry, shall we say, but also to help them get through a hole in their budget for the short term. And that is only right.

When a company who is a participant in the Centrepay scheme is found to do the wrong thing, of course this government steps in and boots them off it until they fix whatever it is that's causing problems. The regulatory framework means these types of businesses have to be licensed; they have to comply with responsible lending obligations; they are overseen by a regulator; and this isn't a service that's offered to cash lenders, pawnbrokers or buy-now pay-later schemes. This is really an important part of the services that are available to people who are in receipt of government assistance, and using Centrepay to help them get on top of their expenses is not only a sensible thing but it is the right thing to do, as we—to bring it back to where I began—balance their need to be protected from vulnerability with their need to develop the skills they need for financial literacy through participation and experience in the market as the capable individuals they are.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the bill be read a second time.

The PRESIDENT (11:55): As no amendments have been circulated to this bill, unless a senator requests a committee stage, I will progress to calling on the mover of the bill to move the third reading.

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales) (11:55): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (11:55): Mr President, I think there might have been an error in the pairing. Senator Urquhart or Senator Polley might be able to ask that the vote be recommitted.

The PRESIDENT: I understand practice is that I just need to state a reason and then I can seek leave of the Senate to put a division again, given it was a second reading. Does one of the whips want to make a contribution so I can then seek leave of the Senate to recommit the vote? I understand this is common practice. Senator Bilyk?

Senator BILYK (Tasmania) (11:56): Mr President, if we could, can we recommit the vote?

The PRESIDENT: I've got consent from both whips to recommit the vote. With the leave of the Senate, I'll put the motion again on the voices. The question is that the bill be read a second time.

Question negatived.

Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (11:57): In summary, these bills are a massive opportunity for free enterprise to fix an unprecedented by-product of human progress. I urge the CSIRO to work with industry to produce biodegradable and compostable plastics that allow Australians to simply switch from environmentally damaging materials to environmentally friendly materials.

The Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill 2020 and associated bills are a win for the environment, a win for Australia and a win for the countries we have been dumping our rubbish into. The extent of this win depends on the response from the CSIRO and from industry. I'd like to take this opportunity to address the fact that the environment can be an opportunity—a huge opportunity—for high productivity and for a competitive advantage. Let's consider the evolution, for example, of management attitudes in business and society's attitudes to safety, quality and the environment. One has followed the other. Safety, initially, was seen as a cost, a burden. But, incidents, whether they injure people or are just simply near misses, are waste. Removing that waste, removing incidents and near misses, improves productivity and profit. This has driven me in my career in management. Improving safety reduces costs, improves productivity and improves profit. That's now accepted, although still not widely followed.

Secondly, there's quality. Quality was seen, initially, as a cost. High quality came with extra cost. Yet the Japanese miracle in manufacturing in the seventies and eighties turned that around, because the Japanese understood that defects are waste. Removing those defects improved quality, reduced costs, improved productivity and improved profit. This has driven my work in improving processes at work—in workplaces and in leadership processes. Quality is now understood to lead to lower costs, and that is why the lowest-cost producers in the world in manufactured goods have the highest quality.

The same cannot yet be said for the environment. Environmental issues, sadly, are still seen quite often as a cost. Yet looking after the environment removes waste and improves productivity and profit. Real environmental problems, such as real pollution of air, water and soil, add to cost. Take the example of the removal of car exhaust pollution. Car exhaust pollution in California is now one-thousandth what it was in the seventies. That has led to increased efficiency in the use of fuel, lower pollution, lower costs for motorists, lower costs for producers and lower costs for the cities of California.

Yet today there are still too many fabricated environmental problems, nonproblems cloaked as environmental issues. Making up environmental problems is physically and morally reprehensible. It hurts people. It adds needless cost, which the poor pay disproportionately. For example, labelling carbon dioxide as a pollutant is dishonest and contradicts science and nature. Car pollution consists of nitrous oxides, sulphur oxides and particulates. These were cleaned up in California and cleaned up in our country. Now we have carbon dioxide fabricated as a pollutant, and that is dishonest and contradicts science and nature. Carbon dioxide is nature's trace atmospheric gas, essential to all life on this planet. It cannot be a pollutant. We cannot affect the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; the empirical evidence shows that. It is not a pollutant.

I call on the government to do its work on hydrocarbon fuels and to understand natural climate variability and how it has been fabricated dishonestly by the Greens and others into climate change due to human activity, when that is false. This distracts from real and serious environmental problems. So, while I compliment the government for its work on plastics and removing plastics from the pollution stream, we need to buck up when it comes to carbon dioxide. Claiming that carbon dioxide is a pollutant leads to needlessly higher electricity prices. The noted and reputable economist Alan Moran calculates, using the government's own data, that it adds $13 billion a year to the cost of electricity in additional costs, that it adds $1,300 to the cost of electricity to the typical household and that 2.3 jobs are lost for every so-called green job that is created by these subsidies. This is hurting the poor. As a result of this climate change nonsense, we have the theft of property rights from farmers. That increases food costs, which hurts the poor. This climate scam is hurting the poor; it is antihuman; it increases costs needlessly, and disproportionately for the poor and those who cannot afford it; it increases waste right through our society; it decreases productivity; and it decreases wealth.

When ideology is wrapped as an environmental issue, as it is with the climate scam, then everyone suffers, particularly when the real aim of this climate scam is simply to control people. Everyone hurts. We need to get back to real and serious environmental issues. This climate scam is distracting us, our money, our time, our attention, our interest, our energy and our effort from real and serious environmental issues.

Senator ASKEW (Tasmania) (12:04): I rise to speak on the Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill 2020 and associated bills, which were introduced to the House of Representatives on 27 August this year. The aim of this bill is to regulate the export of waste materials in line with the commitment of the Council of Australian Governments, COAG, earlier this year to ban the export of waste plastic, paper, glass and tyres. Only those products that have been processed into a value added material and will be reused or remanufactured overseas will be permitted for export. This legislation will also manage the environmental, health and safety impacts of products, particularly the impacts associated with the disposal of waste products, and provide for voluntary co-regulatory and mandatory product stewardship schemes.

Planet Ark research shows that 51 per cent of Australia's household waste is recycled, which is on par with recycling rates in many northern European countries. Even better, Australia has been a world leader in newspaper recycling for years, but we have a way to go with electronic waste recycling. E-waste is increasing at three times the rate of other waste in Australia. Voluntary industry programs, like Cartridges 4 Planet Ark and MobileMuster, have been providing recycling options for many years now, but we've been slow to provide recycling services for televisions, computers and batteries. These bills mean we will be slow no more.

COAG's commitment to banning the export of certain waste materials was target 1 of the National Waste Policy Action Plan 2019. This plan was developed to drive change within industry, businesses, governments and the community to turn waste into a reusable commodity. The strategy to phase out the export of waste plastic, paper, glass and tyres was released in March this year and sets out both the challenges and opportunities presented by the ban and the longer term changes ahead for Australia's waste and recycling sector. The ban on the export of waste products starts with waste glass from 1 January 2021, followed by mixed plastics from 1 July 2021, whole used tyres from 1 December 2021, single resin or polymer plastics from 1 July 2022 and mixed or unsorted paper and cardboard from 1 July 2024.

These bills encourage a circular economy for Australia's waste through the enhancement of voluntary product stewardship. Such an economy will support businesses to realise the full value of recyclable materials as a sustainable resource, with full consideration of the product's entire life cycle. The bills replace the framework contained within the Product Stewardship Act 2011. This act will be repealed by the Recycling and Waste Reduction (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2020.

Earlier this year I visited the Dulverton Waste Management facility at Latrobe in Tasmania's north-west. This facility is already following the recycling and reuse ideals we are aiming for in this legislation. Dulverton provides sustainable landfill and organics recycling services for more than 80 commercial, industrial and government clients across Tasmania. It was constructed in 1995 at a former clay quarry site under the joint authority of four north-west councils—the Central Coast, Devonport City, Kentish and Latrobe councils.

Around 40 per cent of the waste volume at the Dulverton Waste Management facility is organic. It is recycled into nutrient-rich compost used by Tasmanian nurseries, landscapers, public land managers, vineyards, flower and berry growers, orchards and dairy farmers. This recycled compost product stimulates plant growth, increases soil microbial life, unlocks soil nutrients for plants, improves soil salinity and sodicity—the amount of salt held in soil—and increases the soil's water-holding capacity.

Dulverton also collaborates with waste management groups throughout the state and works with businesses and industry bodies to raise awareness of waste avoidance and recycling best practices. The Australian government has made targeted investments to build a stronger Australian recycling industry and create more jobs as a result of these waste management reforms. A number of complementary measures have been introduced to support the objectives of these bills, including $190 million for a new Recycling Modernisation Fund. This fund will leverage $600 million of recycling infrastructure reinvestment, creating more than 10,000 jobs and diverting more than 10 million tonnes of waste from landfill to make useful products when combined with activity from the National Waste Policy Action Plan.

Despite comments made by those on the other side in earlier contributions, I'm very pleased to advise the Senate that an $11 million joint recycling agreement between the Australian and Tasmanian governments was announced in Launceston recently. This landmark agreement, signed by federal Minister for the Environment, Sussan Ley, and Tasmania's Minister for Environment and Parks, Roger Jaensch, will deliver a $16 million boost for the state's recycling industry, creating jobs and reducing pressure on the environment. This partnership is part of the Australian government's $190 million Recycling Modernisation Fund and will leverage a further $5.5 million from Tasmanian industry via matched investment from businesses who will turn the high-quality recycled material into new products.

Other complementary measures supporting the bill's objectives include: $20 million for the National Product Stewardship Investment Fund to grow new and existing schemes, which will contribute to meeting our national target of recovering 80 per cent of our waste resources by 2030; $35 million to implement Commonwealth commitments under Australia's National Waste Policy Action Plan, which sets the direction for waste management policy and recycling in Australia until 2030; $24.6 million for Commonwealth commitments to improve our national waste data so it can measure recycling outcomes and track progress against our national waste targets; $20 million through a special round of the cooperative research centre's projects to find new and innovative solutions to plastic recycling and waste, including new ways of incorporating recycled plastics in manufacturing and construction; strengthening the Commonwealth procurement guidelines to enable any procurement undertaken by a Commonwealth agency to consider environmental sustainability and the use of recycled content when determining value for money, because by using our purchasing power we can generate demand and encourage innovation; and also working with the states and territories to develop national standards and specifications for the use of recycled content in a broad range of capital works projects.

We want to stop exporting untreated and unprocessed waste that is likely to have a negative impact on the environment or harm human health in the country that receives this waste. Our waste management and recycling sector will collect, recover, recycle and reuse waste and convert it into new products as a result. Through better product design, manufacture, distribution and use, we will all take greater responsibility for environmental impacts. Australia is not only taking responsibility for its waste but also ensuring this waste is managed effectively and transformed into a resource we can use again and again. We've turned the tables on the thought that waste is just an environmental product problem that needs to be solved, instead seeing it as an opportunity to design, manufacture and create new products and foster new industries. Reforming our practices around unprocessed waste products will lead to a fundamental change in attitude that will positively affect our bottom line. Waste management and recycling practices that stem from this bill are expected to add $3.6 billion to the Australian economy's turnover and generate $1.5 billion in economic activity over the next 20 years. In addition to ensuring we are recycling and reusing our waste products, the bill will set out obligations for manufacturers, importers and distributors in relation to those products. This legislation also sets out accreditation arrangements for voluntary product stewardship, which will help Australian consumers understand the impact of certain products so they can make better choices when purchasing and disposing of products.

Recycling and reusing products is something Australians care deeply about. To understand this, we only need to look at the uptake of local government kerbside recycling programs, the popularity of bottle-recycling schemes and the number of people who spend their weekends combing through tip shops and travelling between garage sales to find products they can upcycle for their homes or resell at market stalls and in shops. People spend time sorting and separating their recyclable paper, glass and plastic packaging to put into the recycling bins or taking products to their local waste collection facilities, and they want to know these products are going to be repurposed effectively, not dumped in an ever-growing landfill facility or sent overseas. The export bans outlined in the bill are our way of ensuring these products will be reused productively.

Recycling benefits our planet, our economy and ourselves. Reusing products decreases the amount of raw materials needed, and the manufacture of new products from recycled materials uses less energy. Recycling creates more jobs than landfill does, and new industries created through reuse boost the economy. We are taking responsibility for our waste by regulating the way products are used, from initial design and manufacture through to reuse or recycling into a different product. This commitment will expand the capacity of our industries, as well as open opportunities for new product ideas, new technologies and new markets for these products. It will ensure our resources will be used in sustainable ways for future generations. I commend this bill to the Senate.

Senator HENDERSON (Victoria) (12:14): It is a pleasure to speak on one of the most important issues currently facing our nation: protecting our environment for today, for tomorrow and into the future for generation after generation. A key part of this commitment is to stop the waste. That is key to our protection of the environment on the land, in the air, along our coastlines and in our precious oceans. The Morrison government is committed to bringing to an end the 645,000 tonnes of unprocessed plastic, paper, glass and tyres which Australia ships annually overseas. The Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill 2020 and related bills will provide a vital phased approach to ensure that this becomes a reality. As the Prime Minister said so succinctly: it is our waste; it is our responsibility.'

I'm incredibly proud of the many ways in which the Morrison government is committed to protecting our environment. Whether it's meeting and beating our climate targets or supporting local environmental community initiatives, this is a government which takes the practical environmental actions which are required. By way of example, the government released the Quarterly update of Australia's national greenhouse gas inventory: June 2020a very short time ago. The quarterly update confirms that Australia has beaten its 2020 target for lower emissions—the target period being 2013-20—by 459 million tonnes, an overachievement on the previous record, being that between 2008 and 2012. This is an increase on the previous estimate of 411 million tonnes published in December 2019. Australia's overachievement on its 2020 target is due in large part to significant structural declines in emissions from the electricity and agriculture sectors. In 2019-20, emissions in the National Electricity Market, which is Australia's largest electricity grid, fell 5.3 per cent to a new record low. Of course, this has also been driven very substantially by Australia's incredible investment in renewable energy—some $30 billion since 2017—as we continue to deploy new solar and wind at a rate that is 10 times faster than the global average. Recent advice from the Clean Energy Regulator is that this trend is expected to continue in the coming years. This is evidence of real action by a government with practical, real solutions.

Labor, in contrast, remains committed to its reckless targets. We have seen in recent weeks the war within the Labor Party over climate and energy policy. Labor is all at sea. Independent modelling by BAEconomics shows Labor's 45 per cent emissions reduction target and its 50 per cent renewable energy target would drive up wholesale power prices by 58 per cent, cost the economy $472 billion, reduce real wages by $9,000 per household and slash 336,000 jobs. At least there are some in Labor who have worked this out and worked out the cost of the reckless policies which Labor, of course, took to the last election and which were soundly defeated. Yet it is very concerning that much of Labor's true thinking was revealed by its Labor Environment Action Network, which said: 'High prices are not a market failure. They are proof of the market working well.'

Importantly, the Morrison government's approach with these bills before us today harnesses a cooperative approach with business and other levels of government, along with the community and individuals. Minister Sussan Ley said in her second reading speech:

This bill implements the agreement by all of Australia's governments to ban the export of waste plastic, paper, glass and tyres. It also incorporates the framework of the existing Product Stewardship Act 2011. It includes improvements to better regulate and encourage our businesses—those that design, manufacture, distribute and use products—to take greater responsibility for their environmental impacts.

And that's a key point: governments can do so much, but in order for us to reduce our waste, in order for us to embrace the circular economy, we have to work together with every single business which creates waste and with every single family in every household across Australia. These bills is a very important part of our very significant efforts to transform the nation's waste and recycling sector. It says that we have to take responsibility for what we produce and that the more we can recycle the less goes into landfill and the better we are now and into the future.

The Commonwealth's 2018 National Waste Policy identifies five overarching circular economy waste principles. The first is to avoid waste, and that is by prioritising waste avoidance; encouraging efficient use, re-use and repair; and designing products to minimise waste so that they are made to last and so that we can more easily recover materials from products which are produced. A second important principle is to improve resource recovery—that is, to improve material collection systems and processes for recycling and improve the quality of recycled material we produce. The third principle is to increase the use of recycled material and build demand and markets for recycled products—one person's rubbish is another person's treasure! That ability for us to see much of what we produce as being recycled throughout our economy is a very important principle. The fourth principle is the better management of material flows to benefit human health, the environment and the economy. And the fifth principle is to improve information to support innovation, guide investment and enable informed consumer decisions. All of these principles make good environmental sense, and they are key to tackling the problem before us today.

Our government, led by Prime Minister Morrison, is to be congratulated for its unwavering commitment to pursuing better environmental outcomes for all Australians. The export ban will be phased in, starting with glass on 1 January 2021; then including mixed plastics, whole used tyres and single-resin, or polymer, plastics; and culminating in July 2024 when mixed and unsorted paper and cardboard will be included. The export ban would only apply to unprocessed waste, which allows for the processing of waste materials within Australia for subsequent export and use in overseas manufacturing.

Minister Ley has made it very clear that this offers an economic opportunity for Australia, saying:

The waste export ban is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to transform our waste management and recycling sector to collect, recycle, reuse and convert waste into a resource—

a resource we can continue to use as a nation over and over. These reforms are expected to see the Australian economy turn over an additional $3.6 billion and potentially generate $1.5 billion in additional economic activity over the next 20 years. So this is a big win for both the environment and our economy.

We recognise that, if action is not taken, scientists estimate that in 30 years time the weight of plastics in our oceans will exceed the weight of the fish in the oceans, and that's a pretty horrifying thought. I know where I live, in south-west Victoria, including in the wonderful electorate of Corangamite, that is a very important priority. We want to make sure that our oceans are as clean as they possibly can be, and in communities where I live throughout the Corangamite electorate—a magnificent part of the world, as we know—there is a really strong and important focus on reducing plastic in our oceans.

Australians create around 67 million tonnes of waste each year. We want to see less waste going to landfill and ending up in oceans and more being reused and recycled. We are building Australia's domestic recycling capability through our $167 million Australian recycling investment plan. This plan will increase Australia's recycling rates, tackle plastic waste and litter, accelerate work on a new battery recycling scheme and halve food waste by 2030. I'm also very pleased that microbeads are being rapidly phased out: 94 per cent of cosmetic and personal care products in Australia are already microbead free.

National environmental initiatives are vital, but so are local environmental initiatives, and I was very pleased recently to join with the Corangamite Catchment Management Authority to announce some very important local environmental programs for south-west Victoria, including the $6 million Wild Otways Initiative, which includes a $1 million community environmental grants program, and that's been, of course, steered through Minister Ley's office. This is a wonderful opportunity for local environment groups to make an application for funding to support a local environmental project, whether it be programs to improve weed and pest animal control, fencing and access track construction or other improvement works, and wildlife habitat improvement works. So, for those who are reading this Hansard or listening to this debate and are interested in protecting our environment, I would absolutely commend this local project, which is a result of the Morrison government's commitment to our local environment. Of course, that was a commitment made before the last federal election. It was not matched by Labor, I note, which was pretty disappointing. These grants will provide an amount of funding between $5,000 and $50,000 each year for up to two years. So they are very substantial local grants and are a really good example of how local initiatives do matter.

This recycling and waste reduction bill represents an effective and cooperative government, business and community approach to protecting our environment. I'm very pleased that the private sector has shown a willingness to be part of the solution at Australia's first National Plastics Summit, hosted by this government in March. We saw a number of very major pledges from leading companies, including the Pact Group, Nestle, McDonalds, Coca-Cola and Coles, all of which, of course, produce an enormous amount of waste. It is obviously important—very important—that we see that sort of commitment from our large businesses and companies around Australia. So, to every business, large and small: please have a look at what we are doing to support waste reduction, recycling and the circular economy. We are absolutely determined, as a government, to protect Australia's precious environment, to reduce waste and to embrace our circular economy. Our commitment in this bill is another example of our commitment to the environment, and I commend this bill and related bills to the Senate.

Senator RICE (Victoria—Deputy Australian Greens Whip) (12:29): I rise to speak on the Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill 2020 and associated bills. I want to particularly acknowledge the work that my colleague Senator Whish-Wilson has done through his extensive advocacy on this issue, his work in multiple inquiries on waste and the detailed amendments that he has circulated and been negotiating on across the parliament with regard to these bills. Senator Whish-Wilson has been on the case of waste management and the need for better waste management the whole time he has been in the Senate.

As we said in our additional comments to the committee report, the Greens feel these bills are a step in the right direction. But it will be a missed opportunity if this legislation is passed in its current form without substantive amendments. We recognise that there are some very positive elements in these bills, but there is much more that needs to be done. In particular the idea of an export ban is great, and it has been really good to be here this morning to hear government senators talk about their commitment to recycling, to waste management and to no longer shipping all of our waste offshore. It's a good start. But where we think we particularly need to have more action is in the various targets that are set in these bills; they need to be mandatory. It is not going to be good enough just to have voluntary targets.

Recycling and waste management is an absolutely serious issue, particularly with regard to plastic waste. As Senator Whish-Wilson has already outlined in his contribution, 40 per cent of the plastic used here is single use. It has an average life span of 12 minutes. That's absolutely shocking. Only 16 per cent of that plastic is being recycled; that means 84 per cent is going elsewhere, as waste in the oceans, in our bushlands, in our streets or in landfills. Wherever it is, it's not being reused. It's a waste, and it's having an impact on the environment. We know that 80 per cent of marine debris is plastic and that global consumption of plastic could triple by 2040. There is a horrific amount of plastic in our oceans already, and, tragically, more is on its way unless we act. This matters for all of us; it matters for us, for the fish that we eat, for the oceans that we swim in and for the beaches that we walk on. Without urgent, drastic action, the situation is only going to get worse.

Recycling is something that really matters to people. It's something that people engage with every day. People want to do the right thing. People want to feel that they are contributing to creating a cleaner and a better environment that we all share. They know that they should do the right thing. Essentially, the role of government is to make things easier for them. So we need legislation that has the government doing its bit and businesses doing their bit so that it makes it easier for everybody. That means you need to have mandatory measures in place so that all businesses then know where they stand. You can't have some businesses playing the situation off against each other.

I cannot understand the reluctance to implement mandatory targets when we basically have the industry saying: 'Look, it's not going to cost us any more. We've got some quite ambitious targets. We think we're going to meet them.' Why not make them mandatory? Why not put in legislation that this is where we are absolutely committed to heading? We have mandatory targets and mandatory standards across all other parts of our lives. Whether it's in health and safety, whether it's in sporting competitions, whether it's in industrial relations or whether it's in human rights, we have standards that are absolute commitments that we have to meet. I cannot see why those standards should be voluntary rather than mandatory in the critical area of protecting our environment.

Plus, having mandatory standards gives certainty to business. It makes it clear that those are the standards that they are going to reach, and it gives business the confidence to invest the hundreds of millions of dollars that are going to be needed in the circular economy. It's the same situation we are in with the lack of certainty about investing in renewable energy, with all of the toing and froing and with businesses not knowing where they stand. They are saying that that is the reason there hasn't been as much investment as there otherwise would have been. The same will go here: it's not going to be good enough just to have the export ban; you need to give businesses certainty to invest in the industries that are going to be part of the circular economy.

People are aware of how damaging plastic waste is, and we know that lots of people have taken action to try and remove plastic from their lives altogether. They want to see government working with them to make it easier for them. Like so many other people, I try and reduce the amount of plastic that comes into my household. I bring my own cloth bags, reuse plastic bags, wash plastic bags and resist buying takeaway food if it comes in single-use plastic containers, and I know there are millions of Australians like me who are just as passionate. Of course, I recycle everything I can, including plastic packaging and soft plastics. But at the moment it's hard work, because we don't have an industry set up to be using that plastic. We don't have the recycling industries. We know currently with the drop in the amount we've been able to export, with countries saying, 'No, we don't want your plastic waste anymore,' the market for recycled plastics has collapsed. Local governments have stopped collecting the amount of plastics that they used to, because there's just not anywhere for them to go. I now bring my mother's plastic containers, which she gets with her Meals on Wheels, home from her place because her local government is no longer recycling them. Basically, you've got to be committed to doing that and committed to the recycling of soft plastics, which you've got to take off yourself and take to the supermarket. We need to be making it easier for people. We need the government to be working with the community and working with industry, and that means having the mandatory targets. It means doing more than what is set out in this legislation.

Making best use of our resources and reusing and recycling is not just about plastics. There has been a lot of focus on plastics. Urgent action is needed in another area: we need more action to encourage the recycling and the reuse of paper products. That will have a direct impact on protecting our forests. Five years ago, in 2015, I moved a motion calling on the government to ensure that government agencies were using 100 per cent recycled paper. Of course, the response was some waffle about one agency, of the many across the entire Commonwealth, that was using 100 per cent recycled paper. They didn't address the real issue, which was using the procurement power of the Commonwealth to support paper recycling. It's tragic, because if we had used that power of procurement and, again, if we had mandatory targets that said, 'This is the level of recycling we are going to have,' it would have directly impacted on the amount of wood pulp for paper that we needed to get out of our native forests.

We are continuing to devastate our native forests, primarily for woodchips for pulp, whether it's for here in Australia or for export overseas, when we have paper in waste streams going to waste. We've got a situation where we are still continuing to log our mountain ash forests in the Central Highlands of Victoria, home to the critically endangered Leadbeater's possum, to feed the pulp and paper mill at Maryvale, the Nippon mill in the Latrobe Valley, and yet they've got a recycled paper line there that is underused. If we had procurement from this Commonwealth government saying, '100 per cent of the paper being used in Commonwealth agencies needs to be recycled,' that would enable that production to lift and it would enable us to be getting less of the pulp from our native forests. These things have consequences. These things are connected, and there are actions that people want to see being taken that government is in a position to actually implement.

Think of the situation that our forests are currently in. Last summer—we're heading into another summer—the devastating bushfires wreaked havoc on our native forests. The impact on our forests from fire was the biggest ever to any continent in the world. Places that have never burnt before were aflame because of the hotter temperatures drying them out. Lives were lost. Homes burnt to the ground. Our firefighters were working days on end, protecting lives around the country. Our forests are under incredible threat from the climate crisis. But still, after last summer, the Liberal Party and National Party are in denial. It wasn't the time to talk about our climate crisis; it was too soon, they said. Well, it's a year later, we're heading into another summer, and we're still waiting for a meaningful acknowledgement from them of the climate crisis. We are still waiting for meaningful action on climate, and this is connected with what we're talking about today, because there is a suite of actions that need to take place in order to protect our environment. You can't get up and give fine-sounding words about your commitment to recycling without seeing that these issues are all interconnected. Yes, you need to be taking action on recycling, but it's not enough just to have fine-sounding words and voluntary targets. You need to be addressing the pressures on our environment across the board, and that means taking action on our climate crisis.

Going back to forests, instead of taking action on our climate crisis, instead of saying we're going to have mandatory targets for paper recycling, they're extending the regional forest agreements, extending the devastation of our native forests by years, when they should be shifting all of our forestry into plantations and getting out of native forest logging as quickly as possible to protect our precious wildlife, protect our water supplies and do something about protecting the carbon stores that our forests are. We should be protecting our forests because of, just intrinsically, how beautiful and precious they are in their own right.

Our handling of waste and recycling matters—it matters today for all Australians. We can have the Prime Minister rocking up to the UN and saying that he wants Australia to lead the world in recycling, but we know the truth, and the truth is that Australians are actually tired of being taken for mugs by this Prime Minister. People used to criticise Mr Shorten for having different answers for when he was talking to people in Brunswick from when he was talking to people Townsville. But the truth is that when you base your approach, particularly to the environment, on marketing spin, you're going to be caught in the same trap. The Prime Minister was very happy to make a big, flashy speech at the UN talking about how much he cares about the environment and wants to lead on recycling and waste handling, but it's time he stopped taking Australians for fools. We can see the truth behind the smirk. You cannot be serious about the environment unless you are being serious about the climate crisis.

This is the same Prime Minister who brought his lump of coal into the parliament and sat on the front bench fondling it, like Gollum holding his precious. The truth is that, despite all of Prime Minister Morrison's marketing spin, if you care about the environment, you must act on the climate emergency. The Prime Minister is happy to wear a hard hat and talk about mining coal when in Queensland, but, when he goes to the UN, he won't admit to being one of the world's worst polluters or holding back action on emissions. Instead, he pretends to be doing something by talking about recycling. Well, Australian voters see past it. They see past the spin to the fossil fuel lobby that is propping up the Liberal Party. In conclusion, these bills are a small positive step in the right direction, but so much more needs to be done. More than that, we need, in addition to action on recycling, action on our environment crisis and urgent action on our climate crisis—not tomorrow but today or, even better, yesterday.

Senator RENNICK (Queensland) (12:43): I rise today in support of the Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill 2020 and cognate bills. I commend the government's commitment to stop shipping our unprocessed recyclable waste overseas. In the last reported financial year, Australia shipped over 4.44 megatonnes of waste overseas, with 15 per cent of this being unprocessed plastics, glass, paper and cardboard—that is, over 600,000 tonnes. Given the nature of the recent bans on recyclable waste, in particular by some of the largest waste importers including China, Malaysia, Indonesia, India and the Philippines, the issue of exporting waste is no longer a viable management strategy. Waste is a threat to our environment and none more so than waste from our renewable energy industry. I must admit that I did agree with Senator Rice's contribution to this debate, when she said that it should be mandatory for some companies to clean up their waste, none more so than waste from our renewable energy industry. Renewable energy companies, industries and advocates are notorious for hiding and minimising their environmental and human health impacts. They demand and receive exemptions from health and endangered species laws that apply to other industries. They make promises they cannot keep about being able to safely replace fossil fuels that now provide over 80 per cent of the world's global energy.

A few articles have noted some of the serious environmental, toxic, radioactive waste, human health and child labour issues inherent in mining rare earth and cobalt lithium deposits. However, we need quantitative studies—detailed rigorous, honest, transparent, cradle-to-the-grave, peer-reviewed analysis. It's been calculated that replacing 160,000 terawatts of global energy consumption with wind would require 183 million turbines needing roughly: 461 billion tonnes of steel for towers; 460 billion tonnes of steel and concrete for the foundations; 59 million tonnes of copper, steel and alloy for the turbines; 738 million tonnes of neodymium for turbine magnets; 14.7 billion tonnes of steel and complex composite materials for nacelles; and 11 billion tonnes of complex petroleum based composites for rotors and massive quantities of other raw materials. All of this must be mined, processed and manufactured into finished products and shipped around the world. Once the life of these products has ended, they then need to be either disposed of cleanly or recycled. Shipping just the iron ore to build the turbines would require nearly three million voyages in huge ships that would consume 13 billion tonnes of bunker fuel—heavy fuel, at that. Converting that ore to iron and steel would require 473 billion tonnes of coking coal, demanding another 1.2 million sea voyages consuming another six billion tonnes of bunker fuel. For sustainability disciples, does the earth have enough of these raw materials for this transformation?

It gets worse. These numbers do not include the ultra-long transmission lines required to carry electricity from windy locations to distant cities. As I mentioned last week, the cause of the 2009 bushfires was determined to be a fallen transmission line. If we're going to build more transmission lines, are we going to put them underground to reduce the risk of fire breaking out?

Wind turbines and solar panels last just 20 years or less, while coal, gas and nuclear power plants last up to 50 years and require far less land and raw materials. That means we would have to tear down, haul away and replace far more renewable generators twice as often, dispose of or recycle their composite parts and mine, process and ship more ores. Then there are the bird and bat species deaths, the wildlife losses from destroying habitats and the human health impacts from wind turbine noise and flicker. These also need to be examined, fully and honestly, along with the effects of skyrocketing renewable energy prices on every aspect of this transition and of our lives.

Solar panels are far more efficient at turning sunlight into heat than they are at turning sunlight into electricity. Solar panels produce more waste heat per watt than any other power source. In areas where there are large solar plants, temperatures can be as much as four degrees hotter than the surrounding land, forming heat islands. Pilots flying lower than 12,000 feet have been reported as feeling the rising hot air. Plants and animals are the enemy of solar and must be removed from solar plants. Since solar plants require vast amounts of land, usually only available in environmentally sensitive areas, wildlife is devastated. It's also worth pointing out that the CSIRO themselves have predicted that Australia's lithium battery waste could exceed over 100,000 tonnes in less than 20 years. Old lithium batteries are a fire risk and they are full of toxic heavy metals that have a limited life.

I should point out that the Leader of the Opposition, Anthony Albanese, has been accusing this government of playing accounting tricks with the Paris Agreement. If there were ever an accounting trick, it's the fact that the cost of building all these renewables in other countries and the CO2 that's emitted in the production of these renewables aren't included in Australia's targets—and nor, might I add, is recycling or cleaning up these renewables. So, if you want to get serious about where the real accounting trick is, it's that all countries are either in Paris or they're not. What's happening is that a lot of these renewables are being manufactured in non-Paris-committed countries, and those carbon dioxide emissions aren't being included in the countries where that energy's being consumed. So I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition reflect on his comments about accounting tricks, because, if there are any, they arise from the way the Paris Agreement was structured to encourage renewables to be manufactured in countries that do not come under the agreement. Perhaps he might look at other countries rather than try to destroy our productive industries and destroy Australian jobs.

In relation to the existing recycling and collection methods and infrastructure, coupled with the recent international agreements relating to hazardous waste movement and plastic marine debris, as well as the development of foreign policy, current data suggests the export of recycled material would no longer be a cost-effective solution and would damage the economy and the environment in the near future. At the forefront of the heavy reliance on international agreements and policy is the 2018 introduction of restrictions on waste imports in China. In the 2017-18 financial year, China was the largest importer of Australian recyclable waste, importing over 1.3 million tonnes of waste. China's new restrictions have caused large-scale changes to the market, including reducing the price of scrap paper, which was once valued at $124 a tonne, by almost 100 per cent. The price of scrap plastic, once valued at $325 per tonne, has reduced by 78 per cent. The price of cardboard, once valued at $210 per tonne, has reduced by 40 per cent. With many other South-East Asian countries reaching capacity and considering new restrictions on recyclable material, it is vital that the government moves away from the export of waste and towards domestic recyclable waste management, as is proposed by this legislation. The export of recyclable waste is no longer a good investment. If nothing is done, it is likely that we will see the export of such waste being valued at less than worthless, leaving Australia with a waste problem that has no prior established solution.

However, this is not just an economic issue. I have no doubt that everyone in this chamber has seen footage of the plastic filled stomachs found in some of our marine birds, and countless images of marine species becoming trapped and strangled by plastic pollution. I guarantee everyone has seen footage of a turtle hopelessly stuck after consuming plastic pollution in the ocean. This is a moral issue and, more importantly, a strong environmental issue. Contrary to the belief of those opposite, I am actually an environmentalist. You will struggle to find someone with more love for our natural environment than me, which is why I spent seven years overseas in my early 20s, travelling around various countries, climbing the slopes of Kilimanjaro or Mont Blanc, diving in numerous countries, hiking in numerous countries, and being fascinated by what a wonderful and beautiful world we live in. One of the things I noticed is that, the poorer the country, the worse the waste problem was. That is why we should never destroy our economy to save the environment, because without a strong economy you will not save the environment. It's very important. Many countries just don't have freely available the things that we take for granted in Australia, like garbage bins, and, for that matter, sanitary facilities. I've been in many places in Third World countries where you get a bit of diarrhoea or something and you have to find a toilet. I can tell you it's something that you take for granted in this country, but in many other countries it is difficult to find. So we should always be ensuring that we protect our economy and keep waste to a minimum.

I believe that the reliable, affordable, emission-free energy that is contained within hydro power, hydrogen power and, of course, one of the world's most cleanest and most reliable sources of power, nuclear energy, is the path to the future. It's why I asked in estimates about chirped pulse amplification, which is a technology that has recently come to the fore. In 2018 a Nobel prize was given for work in this area. The technology involves a very strong, powerful laser beam being shone on a nucleus, the idea being that you shine it on the neutrons and try to flip one of the quarks to turn a neutron into a proton. That will reduce the lifespan of radioactive waste from nuclear energy by thousands of years, to about 30 years. If we could do that, that would be a huge step forward in being able to use nuclear energy as a clean, green method of energy, and eventually we're going to have to go there. One of these days, if we ever have to leave Planet Earth, we won't be leaving it with a wind-powered spaceship, I can assure you. There is no wind and not much light up there in space, so, if we ever have to find means to find other resources somewhere else, it's going to have to involve nuclear technology. The country that gets on top of that is going to be the country that leads on manufacturing and things like that, because nuclear energy, if used properly, will be the cheapest form of energy.

Waste management is crucial to keep Australia's environmental wonders wondrous. That is why, on behalf of the Australian government, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency announced that it is placing over $15 million of funding into 16 projects to help address the solar PV panel efficiency and end-of-life issues. I have always been a strong supporter of adequate strategies and research being used to investigate solar and battery waste, as can be seen by my submission on the EPBC Act. Given the potential environmental disaster solar waste disposal could cause through the leaching of hazardous materials such as lithium and lead, this research funding could not come too soon.

Contrary to what many have been made to believe by those opposite, the disposal of waste from materials such as solar panels and plastics poses one of the largest environmental threats to countless ecosystems around the world, our beloved Great Barrier Reef being the biggest one close to home. Forget theories based on fundamentally flawed BOM data and methods. Forget the potential negligible impact our farmers have on three per cent of inland reefs. Waste disposal is an environmental disaster that is affecting our marine ecosystems now and is only going to get worse, as solar and battery waste is expected to become a major contributor to national waste in the decades to come.

By banning unprocessed plastics, cardboard, paper and other recyclable material from being exported, we are creating a circular economy. The Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill 2020 is simply the first of many reforms to our economy to make it better suited to the changing climate of foreign politics and to ensure the sustainable use of resources for our future generations. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (12:58): I rise to speak on the Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill 2020 and associated bills, and I want to associate myself with the remarks made by my Greens colleague Senator Peter Whish-Wilson, who has been a longstanding, passionate advocate for waste reduction and recycling. I have a strong commitment to moving us towards zero waste and a circular economy. I've had that commitment for a long time through my work in the New South Wales parliament and before that in my role as environmental manager in local governments.

While this bill in front of us bans waste export, which is really good, this bill is nowhere near enough to deal with the mountains of waste that we produce. The truth of the matter is that we should never have been exporting waste in the first place. I think many Australians were alarmed when they found out about this. If waste is produced here, it should be dealt with here. 'Out of sight, out of mind' is not going to cut it anymore. If the government is really serious about addressing the waste crisis, these bills are not the solution; they are just window-dressing for the problem. Banning waste exports is not going to help us crawl out of the mountains of waste that we produce and neither is recycling by itself. Being serious about waste means starting at the top of the waste hierarchy by avoiding and reducing waste, then moving on to reuse and repair, and then recycling and so on. The least preferred option, of course, is disposal. These bills do nothing to reduce waste. These bills do nothing to make product stewardship mandatory, nothing to ensure that the producers of the waste have the responsibility for it and nothing to address the problem of plastics pollution.

Before I say a little more on these issues, I want to highlight the size of the problem that we face. To start the story of waste, let's get a snapshot of what we produce, recycle and dump. Australia produced about 76 million tonnes of waste in 2018-19. That's at least five million full garbage trucks every single year. To enable you visualise that, Madam Deputy President: if those trucks were lined up they would form a queue of about 40,000 kilometres, which is well over the length of the whole coastline of Australia. That's the extent of the problem that we are facing. According to MRA Consulting, between 1996 and 2015 our population increased by 28 per cent while our waste generation increased by 170 per cent. That's a compound growth rate of about eight per cent a year.

Our waste habits also have a significant impact on the climate crisis, first through the use of energy and material to satisfy our appetite for production and consumption and then through the methane that is produced from landfill when we bury our discards. Methane is much more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. That only exacerbates the climate emergency that we are already in. While there is no doubt, when you look at the numbers in our state of the environment reports, that the rate of recycling has definitely increased over the years, the total amount of waste has also increased, and that is the crux of the problem. We can't keep on producing more and more, throwing it out and then hoping to recycle our way out of this mountain of rubbish.

Waste and recycling was brought into the public focus just a few years ago with a Four Corners expose, aptly called 'Trashed'. The program told us some things that we knew and some things that came as quite a shock to many of us, especially the revelation that possibly half of all the waste that we thought was being recycled was ending up in landfill or as stockpiled material in New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria. We found out that what we were diligently separating for recycling at home wasn't being recycled at all.

It is deeply concerning that, rather than focusing on the root causes of waste and how to manage it, governments have decided to go down the path of unsustainable, polluting alternatives like waste incinerators. In New South Wales alone there are proposals for five waste incinerators. If built, these garbage incinerators will operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, poisoning our air with dioxins, furans, heavy metals and fine particles such as PM2.5 and PM10, putting in danger the health of communities living in their vicinity. There is a real concern that these waste burners could effectively monopolise waste disposal as well. What might end up happening is that material that could be reused or recycled is burnt in incinerators instead. To meet the appetite of these burning machines, more waste will be produced, not less. These incinerators have absolutely zero social licence. They have been thoroughly rejected by the community. When I was in the New South Wales parliament, I was part of a massive community campaign to push back on the gigantic world's largest toxic waste incinerator proposed for Eastern Creek in Western Sydney. Because of the courage of the community, it was knocked back by the department of planning, the New South Wales EPA, NSW Health and the parliamentary inquiry that I sat on. The Independent Planning Commission drove the final nail in the coffin of this waste burner. Melinda Wilson, spokesperson for Western Sydney Direct Action, was recently reported as saying:

Why and how can a project already rejected by the Independent Planning Commission (IPC) come back again, five-fold? Why did the Minister not accept the IPC's advice and reject these incinerators once and for all?

She's right. The risks to human health and the environment are serious and irreversible. These incinerators are no solution to the waste problem. Energy from burning rubbish is not renewable, clean or green. These big, dirty waste polluters have recently been banned in the ACT, and rightly so. The federal government should show leadership and at least stop any public funding going to these waste incinerators. This legislation is an opportunity to do that.

While we are talking about ways in which the federal government can show leadership, let's talk about plastics. One hundred and eighty million plastic bags find their way into the environment every year, and microplastics have been found in the majority of drinking water supplies all around the world. Conservative estimates have stated that there are currently five trillion pieces of plastic on the surface of oceans and an additional eight million tonnes of plastics entering oceans every single year. This is the equivalent of one garbage truck of plastic every minute of every day of the year. Australia alone produces over 2.5 million tonnes of plastic per year. That's a huge addition to the global plastic pollution problem. In 2018-19, nine per cent of plastic was sent to be recycled, while a whopping 84 per cent was sent to landfill. A worrying amount of this waste ends up on our streets and in our waterways.

The impacts of plastics are devastating to our marine life, such as seabirds, dolphins, seals and turtles. I want to thank the wonderful people who work at facilities like the Australian Seabird Rescue in Ballina, where they rescue and rehabilitate marine animals and seabirds that have usually been injured after ingesting plastic. They also educate schoolchildren to reduce the use of plastics.

The 2015 Senate committee report into the threat of marine plastic pollution stated that there are worrying gaps in our knowledge about the effects of marine plastic pollution. This includes the impacts on population levels of native animals, the effects on human health of plastics in the food chain, as well the short- and long-term effects of microplastics. If the Prime Minister really wants to tackle the plastic pollution problem—and he should do this with gusto—then this bill must be amended to address plastics. I know that some state governments are moving to ban single-use plastics. But right here, right now, the federal government has the opportunity to show some guts. Let's not let this chance slip away from us. At the end of the day, we need to urgently reduce production and consumption, and make big strides away from being a throwaway society. Instead of starting at the bottom-of-the-waste hierarchy with landfilling, burning waste and recycling, why not start at the very top, with waste avoidance? Even better, let's look at it from the perspective of material and resource management rather than waste management. On the other side of the waste coin is the unbridled use of precious natural resources like our forests and water. There are many tools available for us to do this. For example, approaches like mandatory extended producer responsibility—which makes producers of goods responsible for their full life cycle—have been quite successful in reducing material use, extending a product's life and making it easier to reuse, repair and recycle. Basically, the attitude of the industry must be to design for the environment. If it can't be fixed, reused or recycled, don't make it. The repair economy is also something really worth investing in.

Waste is a hot topic at the moment, and we should reignite the conversation about drastically reducing and eliminating waste. While the idea of zero waste can be daunting, according to the Zero Waste International Alliance:0

Zero Waste is a goal that is both pragmatic and visionary, to guide people to emulate sustainable natural cycles, where all discarded materials are resources for others to use. Zero Waste means designing and managing products and processes to reduce the volume and toxicity of waste and materials, conserve and recover all resources, and not burn or bury them. Implementing Zero Waste will eliminate all discharges to land, water, or air that may be a threat to planetary, human, animal or plant health

That's what we all should be trying to do. There is an overwhelming appetite in the community to reduce waste, but we need the government to step in and step up—to play a role. Local councils are at the forefront of waste management but need the state and federal governments to come to the party with funding, support and policy that signals a shift to the words voiding, reducing and reusing waste This bill should not be a wasted opportunity. The time to act is now.

Senator VAN (Victoria) (13:11): In September last year, in my first senator's statement, I said:

Our oceans are choking with plastic and other waste, yet conversations within our community are repetitive, and action needs to move at a quicker pace.

So it is a great privilege to stand in this chamber today to speak on the Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill 2020 and related bills. What a time to get the opportunity to debate and pass this important legislation. Just last month we celebrated National Recycling Week, which is designed to engage with all Australians on the importance of recycling. This year's theme was 'Recovery—A future beyond the bin', which is about closing the recycling loop and buying products made with recycled content.

We are seeing private industry play a significant role in the reduction of single-use products. In my home state of Victoria we are seeing innovative companies, such as one that I'm very familiar with, called Returnr, which was founded by one of the co-founders of KeepCup, starting to see market growth on the back of developing ways to reduce single-use plastics with reusable solutions in the takeaway food industry. These local businesses are recognising that local communities, businesses and families have an important role to play in global sustainability. This approach needs pragmatic, sensible outcomes and not just virtue signalling.

The Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill is a wonderful example of a pragmatic, sensible approach to increasing our recycling and reducing the amount of waste that we send to landfill. One thing that we know for sure is that Australians want to be confident that when they put their bin out on the kerb everything will be collected and recycled. Australians do not want to see their recycling sent to landfill, shipped overseas or stored illegally to become a fire hazard that could explode in a fire at any minute. As the Prime Minister has said: it's our waste; it's our responsibility. That is why this government, under the leadership of Scott Morrison and the tireless efforts of Minister Ley and Assistant Minister Evans, has introduced this legislation.

This legislation will implement the waste export ban agreed by Australian governments in March this year and reform the Product Stewardship Act 2011. The Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill will phase out Australia's offshoring of 645,000 tonnes of plastic, paper, glass and tyres. It is important to remember that whenever we export our waste overseas we are essentially passing our rubbish on to other countries to deal with. The phasing out of Australia exporting its waste will ensure that it is dealt with here. It is our waste, and we bear the responsibility for ensuring that the highest waste recycling standards are met.

To meet the increase in waste being dealt with onshore, we must develop and transform Australia's recycling capabilities and capacities. To do so, the Morrison government is leading a billion dollar transformation of our waste and recycling industry. We are achieving this by helping to build onshore demand for recycled content and helping industry to invest in innovative technology to deal with it. These efforts will create more than 10,000 much-needed jobs and divert over 10 million tonnes of resources from landfill. As I said at the start of my speech, this bill will deliver a pragmatic and sensible approach to increasing our recycling and reducing the amount of waste which is sent to landfill, which is why the next aspect of the bill really excites me. At the same time as phasing out our export waste, we're also introducing reforms to the regulation of product stewardship. These reforms will incentivise companies to take greater environmental responsibility for the products they manufacture, including at the end of the product's life. As we on this side are very good at, it is a combination of carrot and stick: investing in greater environmental responsibility at the time of manufacturing while also investing in Australia's recycling capacity.

As senators in this place are aware, I am a member of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, which considered this bill in great detail. One of the things that really stuck with me throughout the inquiry was how supportive Australian industry, business, green groups and local communities have been towards the waste export ban. All of these groups are supportive of this ban because they see it as a positive catalyst for change. The Morrison government sees it as an opportunity for change as well.

I mentioned Returnr before. It's a business that is shaking up the takeaway industry with their reusable products. But now I want to mention two other great businesses, in the fashion industry, who are also doing their bit to reduce waste. Newly back in Australian hands, RM Williams is offering $150 off new boots if you exchange your old boots. All traded RMs will be restored and replenished for future resale. The clothing brand MJ Bale will slash $200 off any new suit when you bring your old suit in to be donated to Moving the Needle, which is a business collaboration between Australian Red Cross, The Salvation Army and St Vincent's, or St Vinnies. These businesses are tackling the challenge of dealing with waste and recycling head-on and, at the same time, supporting charities and ensuring more Australians have access to great Australian fashion. As a Senate, we should congratulate them for undertaking these initiatives.

This government is striving to support these businesses that are supporting our waste export ban. We've introduced the most significant package of policies and funding commitments on recycling and waste ever brought forward by a federal government. We've introduced the National Waste Policy Action Plan, which will achieve, amongst many things, an 80 per cent average recovery rate across all waste streams and a significant increase in procurement of recycled materials, and it will halve the amount of organic waste sent to landfill. In addition, we are leading substantial investment in recycling through the new $190 million Recycling Modernisation Fund. This fund will use its power to leverage $600 million of new investment in recycling infrastructure. We are providing $35 million to deliver on the Commonwealth elements of the National Waste Policy Action Plan and $24.6 million to improve our waste data. These investments complement our already comprehensive $167 million Australian recycling investment plan. This plan includes $100 million under the Clean Energy Finance Corporation for large-scale projects using clean energy technologies to support the recycling of waste products; $20 million for the National Product Stewardship Investment Fund to kickstart product stewardship action; and Australia's first National Plastics Summit, which was hosted by this government in March and mobilised major pledges from leading companies including the Pact Group, Nestle, McDonald's, Coca-Cola and Coles. The outcomes from the summit will help inform Australia's national plastics plan and achieve a phase-out of problematic and unnecessary plastics over the next five years.

The Morrison government have a strong and positive story to tell on our efforts to reduce waste and increase recycling, and I'm proud to tell that story in this place. Our policies will reduce waste, incentivise the recycling industry and lift recycling rates. They'll tackle plastics pollution in our oceans and waterways. They'll ensure we build a healthy recycling and resource recovery industry in Australia. However, most importantly, we will give Australians the confidence that what they put in their recycling bin will actually be recycled.

Waste is not just an environmental problem to solve; it is an economic opportunity, and, because of the initiatives included in this bill, business will seize the opportunity to re-use and recycle, and they will do it here, at home in Australia.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (13:21): 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.

Senator HANSON (Queensland—Leader of Pauline Hanson's One Nation) (13:32): A year and a half ago I found myself on another one of my North Queensland trips to speak with a company that has developed a method of recycling farm plastics, which are often used for crops like tomatoes, strawberries and melons. For those of you who aren't familiar with farming, at the end of every season the crops are cut back and thousands of kilometres of this black plastic is ripped up and rolled into giant balls that were once upon a time dumped into landfill. This happened on thousands of farms across Australia each year, so you can only imagine how much plastic was ending up in the ground. Once the dumping practice ended, farms were just storing unmeasurable numbers of these plastic bales, which were a ticking time bomb for firebugs and environmental damage on prime agricultural land.

You might ask why this plastic wasn't being recycled in the first place. The problem farmers faced was that, when they'd ripped the plastic up from the moist soil below, dirt would stick to the plastic. The dirt was enough to contaminate the recycling process, so therefore the bales of plastic would just get stored in the corner of a farm. But along came this young bloke, Cory Towner, who was young achiever of the year for showing us that the device he'd developed not just ripped up the black plastic but removed the soil and green matter. His biggest impediment was that he couldn't find the financial support to build these devices on a commercial scale. I was so impressed by what he'd developed that I helped him by becoming an ambassador for his company. I'm not sure too many other senators in this parliament have put their money where their mouths are when it comes to recycling. It would be interesting to ask the Greens how many of them own shares or an interest in a recycling company.

Let's face it, we all have a responsibility to deal with rubbish and recycling in this country, but we'd have a whole lot less to deal with if we weren't buying in cheap goods from countries like China. My generation and older, as well as those who are probably in their early to mid 40s know what recycling is about. My father's garage had shelves of re-used pickle jars full of screws and God knows what else he kept in there. He was the kind of man who could fix just about anything around the house. The other side of the coin was that our pantry had glass jars repurposed for jams that Mum would make out of fruit we grew in the backyard. We'd take the glass soft-drink bottles back to the store for a credit or refund, or donate them to the local Scouts group. We drank from a tap when we were thirsty; we didn't buy water in plastic bottles. When we went for weekend drives, we put boiled water in a flask and made our coffee or tea in the old enamel cups, not throwaway takeaway cups. And we bought quality. We bought Australian made appliances for the house, not this cheap crap we see on the shelves that lasts 12 months if you're lucky.

This Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill 2020 talks about the action plan aimed at driving change in industry, business, governments and the community to turn waste into reusable commodities. I'm sorry, but I can't think of anything useful to do with a $7.50 Kmart toaster that breaks, or burns someone's house down. Nor can I see how a $9 BigW sandwich maker can be turned into a re-usable commodity. These are just two examples of the cheap rubbish we are being sold in stores across Australia. Most of these dead household items just end up in landfill. We bury it—out of sight, out of mind. Let's face it, there's very little worth in keeping a cheap $7.50 cordless kettle from Kmart.

This bill states that it intends to regulate the export of waste material 'which is likely to have a negative impact on the environment or human health in the receiving country'. But where's the regulation to stop the importation of cheap material that is likely to harm the environment or human health in our country—in Australia? As far as I'm concerned, the bulk of what we're sending back is their rubbish sent here to begin with. Take solar panels, for example. Here in Australia we can't do a single thing with dead cells. We're burying them, and all of that cadmium, lead and other toxic chemicals eventually leach into the soil and into waterways. The same goes for other renewable energy sources, like wind turbines. So you're screaming out for more solar panels and more wind turbines in the country, but no-one's told me how you intend to get rid of them. What are we going to do with them?

Some of the Greens might find this difficult to comprehend, but I've been working with the Turnbull and Morrison governments for about three years to enable the world's first commercial recycling plant for asbestos. Asbestos is one of the most deadly materials that a dump and a community will deal with not only in this country but right across the globe. This thermochemical plant that I've taken to the government has been approved by environmental agencies in the United States and the European Union, but not here in Australia.

The Australian company EnviroMaster is being held up by a second feasibility study because of bureaucracy and government departments. They've been forced to undertake two feasibility studies worth more than $12 million. It's the usual red tape we hear about that's helping to continue the trend of digging giant holes and burying thousands of tonnes of this deadly material each week—and this is happening every single day in suburban areas, like my old home town of Ipswich. You heard it here first: Australia has a way of recycling asbestos. But we continue to bury it as best practice, which, as it stands, has an eternal legacy. We can thank federal and state government bureaucrats who feel the need to stifle this new technology, which has already been approved in the United States and Europe. If I knew the names of these bureaucrats I'd name them here, because they're doing a great job proving to taxpayers why they hate dealing with government departments.

Australia could do much more recycling if—I emphasise 'if' for a reason—it had cheaper energy. But because we're not prepared to build more coal-fired power stations we've been forced to send glass and other recycled products overseas, where energy costs are at least half that of Australia's. Again, these bills are just a part of the solution to better recycling here in Australia. Both Senator Roberts and I will be supporting the legislation.

Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (13:40): The Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill 2020 and the package of related legislation collectively represent a giant and gaping missed opportunity to tackle the waste crisis that is engulfing not only our country but in fact the entire world. As the Senate inquiry into these bills made abundantly clear, these bills do not go nearly far enough to tackle the waste crisis. Let's be clear: this is an absolute crisis. Microplastics have been found in the deepest parts of our oceans. They are leeching into the waterways and oceans on every part of our planet and they are choking and poisoning our ecosystems, in particular our marine ecosystems.

We've all seen the shocking photos and images of giant drifts of plastics, whether they are lapping up on beaches, packed so solidly that you cannot even see the water, or whether they have congealed into giant mid-ocean rafts. This terrible habit that we have collectively got into of using fossil fuels—and, remember, plastic is generated from fossil fuels—to create products that we use but once and then dispose of simply by chucking them out the car window into the ocean when we're down at the beach or off the sides of our vessels has to end. We are choking the planet and its ecosystems with plastic. We know that fossil fuel companies are cooking our planet, but, when you remember that the people who make plastic are also fossil fuel companies, they're not just cooking our planet; they are choking our planet with rubbish and with microplastics.

These bills are completely inadequate. I want to congratulate Senator Whish-Wilson on the way he has engaged with this legislation and on the amendments he has developed, and I commend his amendments to the chamber. On some of the flaws in this legislation: it overlooks plastic packaging, which is one of the biggest sources, if not the biggest source, of the plastic waste problem. The bills contain no mandatory targets. You would have thought we would have learned from history, which shows us clearly that simply asking big corporations to modify their behaviour is not going to work when they believe that the changes required to modify their behaviour will impact on their bottom line, on their profits. It's blindingly obvious. It happens time after time after time. When we bring in these voluntary codes of conduct for corporations, they are almost never adhered to. What we need is legislated targets here to make sure that corporations do what they should be doing for the public good and to look after nature on our planet.

As a general principle, humanity simply cannot continue to create as much waste as we do, we cannot afford to continue to burn as much waste as we do, and we certainly cannot afford to continue disposing of waste in the way that we do and in the quantities that we do. Of course, as with so many of the topics we debate in this place, the good news is that we can actually have a win-win here. We can look after nature, marine ecosystems, our environment and our climate and create jobs at the same time. Looking after waste is incredibly job intensive. We need to make sure that we've got enough jobs for people who want them in this country, and currently we don't. Despite all the spin that we'll get from the government benches, there are simply fewer jobs in Australia than there are people who want to work. That's not a controversial statement; that is simply a statement of fact. So why wouldn't we look to create jobs in areas where jobs have extra benefits over and above the simple creation of work—looking after nature, looking after our oceans and reversing the climate breakdown, for example?

That's why the Greens have been talking about significant investment into the infrastructure that will reduce waste and help to rebuild our domestic recycling industry, because we've got lazy over the last few decades in this country. Overwhelmingly, we've made decisions to not invest into a domestic recycling industry but instead to export our recyclable products overseas. For various reasons, that hasn't worked, and particularly in recent years it's worked less and less. So let's invest into rebuilding our domestic recycling industry so that we can create jobs and address one of the most significant environmental issues facing our planet.

Of course the Greens want mandatory product stewardship and a national container deposit scheme, but we also want to phase out single-use plastics. I'll tell you now: when the history of this time is written, there are going to be some pretty big villains writ large in those pages, and those villains are going to be the people who dug in and resisted real climate action, the coal huggers and gas sniffers of this place. They're going to be some of the biggest villains, and they're the people who, when they're retired out of this place, are going to have to answer to their children and in particular to their grandchildren. But it's not just the fossil fools who are going to have to answer those questions; it is those who either stood in the way of meaningful action on waste or put forward solutions which are not strong enough to deal with the problem and then claimed that in fact they were dealing with those problems.

So we have to phase out single-use plastics. How are we going to explain to our grandchildren that we allowed mass marine extinctions and micoplastics to permeate every underwater crevice on this planet, simply because we kept using fossil fuels to generate plastics which were used once and then cast aside to pollute our oceans in the long term?

Addressing our waste crisis will take real leadership. It will take leadership far, far above and beyond the mere tinkering that is encapsulated in the government's legislation. What real leadership would look like would be leadership that did in fact phase out single-use plastics and that did introduce mandatory product stewardship so that the corporations that create the waste are ultimately responsible for managing it right through to the end of its life. Real leadership would look like a national container deposit scheme, and real leadership would look like significant investment into rebuilding our domestic recycling industry. Our land environments and our marine environments, which are already under massive pressure because our climate is breaking down around us, are also under pressure because of the massive amounts of waste that we generate.

We need to see a circular economy with a booming and productive recycling industry. We need to put the onus on companies that are creating this problem to take responsibility for fixing or for being part of fixing these problems. I will tell you now: if you make it cheaper for companies to change their behaviour, rather than simply engage in the status quo, they will take that option. If you make companies pay for the end-of-life management of plastic products, for example, then it might become cheaper for them not to use the plastic in the first place. That's what we want to see. We want—in fact, we not only want but need—to see companies changing their behaviour. We need to see them phasing out single-use plastics. We can do that at the corporate level, and we should do it at the corporate level. We can also do it at the community level, and I want to give a shout-out to Ben Kearney, who led the campaign for and the ultimately successful introduction of a ban on plastic bags in the township of Coles Bay, one of Tasmania's premier tourist towns. Ben, as part of that community, had the conversations that he needed to have, built the community support that he needed to build, and, ultimately, Coles Bay became the first town in the country to ban single-use plastic shopping bags—a small but extremely significant step that shows that we can do this if we're prepared to make the effort and put in the work.

It is time, undoubtedly, to take far, far bigger steps than what the government is proposing in its legislation. It is time to get serious about addressing these problems. We owe it to nature and to all the beautiful creatures, whether they be seabirds or aquatic mammals choking to death on plastic beer can holders or ingesting dozens of plastic bags a day and dying because their digestive systems can't cope with them. We owe it to nature to look after nature, but we also owe it to ourselves. We owe it to humanity and we owe it to all the people who believe we should have a clean environment and respect nature so that nature can continue to look after us. Let's end these small steps from the government. Let's put in place a policy framework that would actually give us a chance at significantly addressing what is certainly a major problem that we are facing. That's why the Greens amendments to be moved by Senator Whish-Wilson are so important. They show the pathway to the kind of leadership that we collectively need and that every person on this planet collectively needs so that we can get on top of one of the biggest environmental challenges facing humanity.

Senator THORPE (Victoria) (13:55): I rise to speak on the Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill 2020 and related bills, but I must also rise to speak about the protection of our lands and waters from waste. For our people, the connection we feel to country and waters can be difficult for settlers to understand. Our connection to country is about our identity as the First Peoples of this continent. Our connection to country and water is about the interdependent relationship between us, as people, and our ancestral lands, seas, oceans and rivers. As our old people continue to teach us, if we look after country, country will look after us. Our relationship with country is sustained by our cultural knowledge, our traditions and the wisdom of our old people. Not just are our people from country; we are of country. Unlike the settlers to this country, who felt that they could steal it, plant their colonial flags and claim these lands as their own, our people do not own the land; the land owns us. And that's why we look after it. Not to know our country and its stories, songs and songlines, its healing places and places of cultural significance causes our people pain. It impacts our health, wellbeing and identity. Our connection to country is our connection to our ancestors and their knowledge. It's this connection that allows our people to identify who they are, who their family are, who their mob are and who their ancestors, elders and totems are, and it guides our children on who they will be. This is why country must be protected from logging, from the mass extinction currently underway and from waste and pollution.

Our people never consented to our lands being taken or our oceans being choked with pollution. Before you fellas came, we cared for country for over 80,000 years. Today, 80 per cent of maritime debris in our waters is plastic rubbish. As a Gunnai Gunditjmara woman, both my countries have the most beautiful coastlines and beaches of anywhere in the world—not just best in the country but in the whole world. Places that are now called Ninety Mile Beach, the Tambo and Mitchell rivers, Lakes Entrance, Portland, Port Fairy and the beaches along the Great Ocean Road used to be pristine places that were abundant with food and shelter for our people. But studies have clearly shown that the majority of all plastic pollution found on the beaches in this country is produced and consumed locally. At the moment, we recycle only 16 per cent of plastic packaging; the rest ends up as waste or in rivers and oceans.

When I heard this government was introducing a waste reduction bill, I thought: 'Great! Surely the government will do the right thing and ban single-use plastics like the many plastic straws and plastic cutlery choking our waters.' Have you seen the story of the turtle that had a straw up its nose and the excruciating pain it went through to get that straw out of its nose? I thought: 'Of course they will reduce plastic packaging and introduce really strong measures to reduce the amount of plastic entering our oceans. Surely the government will mandate compostable recycling.' But, no, these bills do none of that, because the government don't want to do the right thing; they just want to look like they're doing something. I'm not at all surprised that a government led by the marketing department is pulling a marketing stunt. I hope that for Christmas this year the government get a little bit of shame as a present. When given the opportunity to introduce once-in-a-decade waste and recycling laws, they didn't even deal with plastic packaging. They tried; they just didn't try enough.

The federal Labor government introduced a nationwide plan in 2009 to build our local recycling industry and create a circular economy. None of those key policies have been acted on by this government. For the last three years they have presided over bushfires, climate change, mass extinction and a major waste crisis—

Debate interrupted.

Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (15:39): I move:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Defence Act 1903 to provide for parliamentary approval of overseas service members by the Defence Force and for related purposes.

Question agreed to.

Senator STEELE-JOHN: I present the bill and move:

That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (15:39): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.

Leave granted.

Senator STEELE-JOHN: I table an explanatory memorandum and seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

Australia is one of the few remaining democracies that can legally deploy its defence forces into conflict zones without recourse to the Parliament: the decision is reserved for the executive alone. As kindred democracies around the world have enacted reforms to vest the so-called 'War Power' in elected Parliaments, Australia has remained anchored to a pre-democratic tradition founded in hereditary monarchies and feudal states.

If this anachronism had served Australia well, it might be possible to mount an argument that "if it isn't broken, it doesn't need fixing."

If the release of the Afghan Inquiry report and the full realisation of the extent of the shameful alleged crimes carried out by Australian Special Forces does not comprehensively put this view to rest, it is difficult to imagine what would. On the basis of fabricated and willfully misinterpreted intelligence, Prime Minister John Howard followed the United States and the United Kingdom into an illegal and open-ended war in Iraq. Our Parliament, and by extension the voting public of Australia, were cut out of the decision, despite the fact that hundreds of millions of people around the world organised and campaigned against the decision to go to war.

There are few credible analysts left anywhere who do not regard the decision by hardliners within the Bush Administration to invade Iraq as one of the most grievous strategic disasters in modern history. The vast majority of Australians were right, and the executive authorities in the US, the UK and Australia, were wrong. No inquiry into the decision to go to war has ever been held in Australia, only a handful of piecemeal attempts to pin the blame on intelligence services and shift focus away from the actions of the Howard Government.

At the time, Iraq was not threatening war. There was no connection or allegiance between the secular Baathist regime that ruled Iraq and the fundamentalist Al Qaeda networks responsible for the 9/11 attacks. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and hadn't been since 1991. Intelligence agencies within the US, the UK and Australia understood these facts, but inflexible groupthink prevailed within the White House, Downing Street and the Prime Minister's office here in Australia. It was rumoured at the time that Australian Special Forces units were among the very first on the ground inside Iraq, even before President Bush went on live television to announce that Operation Iraqi Freedom had commenced.

Australia is entirely complicit in the violent, decade-long occupation that shattered Iraq's social and economic structures, and ignited long-dormant sectarian tensions that ultimately contributed to the establishment of the caliphate over Northern Iraq and Syria.

If there is a strategic policy failure more complete than the catastrophic invasion of Iraq, it is difficult to recall it. This dismal outcome was predicted at the time by many of those who opposed the war, but the executive's lock on the process means that the normal Parliamentary processes of critique and accountability were bypassed. Somewhere between 100,000 and one million Iraqis have paid for this obscene oversight with their lives.

Concurrently with the Iraq deployment, Australia fought a long, costly, and ultimately futile war in Afghanistan. The heaviest cost was carried by the Afghan people: tens of thousands of civilians killed, maimed and traumatised as the US Government's saturation bombing campaign transitioned into a long, untenable occupation.

What we now know, with the release of the Brereton report, is that in lieu of an overarching strategic objective Australian Special Forces soldiers did not act lawfully or respectfully towards the Afghan people. In his report, Justice Paul Brereton has concluded that 36 separate incidents, involving 25 special forces soldiers, resulted in the murder of 39 Afghan civilians, including children, and the torture of two others. This is a national shame.

Justice Brereton also found that commanding officers either turned a blind eye to sanitised reporting, failing to ask the right questions about high kill counts and questionable evidence, or were so disengaged from the troops on the ground that they simply did not know what was going on. Both of these scenarios are a failure not just of the individual perpetrators to do the right thing, or the commanding officers who were supposed to be in charge, but a political failure as well. Multiple Australian governments are ultimately responsible for sending Australian troops overseas to fight in a seemingly endless conflict with limited overarching strategic objectives, and for keeping them there for well over a decade.

The erratic and secretive nature of military deployment decisions in Afghanistan should seal this argument once and for all: no leader, no matter how perfect, can be trusted alone to make decisions such as this on behalf of the whole nation.

It is no longer tenable that the decision to deploy into conflict zones should be left to the executive alone. Currently, the Defence Act 1903 does not allow for any level of transparent decision making, scrutiny and debate, but this is an artefact of legislation, not the natural order of things.

The Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Approval of Overseas Service) Bill 2020 inserts a new section 29A into the Defence Act 1903 to require that decisions to deploy members of the Australian Defence Force beyond the territorial limits be made not by the executive alone but by Parliament as a whole. This means debate in both houses, followed by a vote.

This Bill was initiated by the Australian Democrats and supported by the Australian Greens, who took carriage of the Bill after 2007. It is the latest iteration of a Bill first introduced into the Senate in 1985. This year it will mark its 35th year of languishing in plain sight while Liberal and Labor Prime Ministers alike reserve this power to themselves, plunging Australia into a tragic series of overseas expeditionary wars that have had little or nothing to do with the defence of Australia or collective security.

In August 2009, the Senate referred the Bill to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee. The majority of the committee resolved to refuse to take evidence in a hearing. Nonetheless, the committee made a useful critique of the Bill without undermining its essential purpose, in its report of February 2010.

The Australian Greens' dissenting report into the Bill provided the transcript of an informal hearing that we held, after the majority committee's short-sighted decision not to take evidence directly from witnesses.

This Bill would bring Australia into conformity with principles and practices utilised in other democracies including Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Slovakia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey, where troop deployment is set down in constitutional or legislative provisions. Some form of parliamentary approval or consultation is also routinely undertaken in Austria, the Czech Republic, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Norway. Our ally the United States has a similar provision that subjects the decision to go to war to a broader forum—section 8 of Article I of the US Constitution quite clearly says, "Congress shall have power to declare war". In the wake of the disaster in Iraq, the Westminster Parliament now holds the de-facto war power, a new convention that prevented a rushed deployment into Syria in 2014.

Arguments against vesting the power over troop deployment to Parliament include that it would be impractical, restrictive and inefficient. Such arguments ignore the fact that parliaments can and do make complex and nuanced decisions, rapidly when necessary. As we have seen, decisions about war and peace made in undue haste that do not enjoy the mandate of the population - expressed through the Parliament, if nowhere else - have no legitimacy.

We know that the Australian community supports, strongly, the idea of making sure that the people they elect to represent them are accountable for making the decision to send our troops overseas to risk their lives in armed conflict. A Roy Morgan opinion poll carried out in September of this year found that 83.3% of Australians want Parliament to decide whether our troops are sent into armed conflict abroad. The poll found that support for reform is very strong across the political spectrum with more than 75% of all Labor, Coalition and Greens voters believing that Parliamentary approval should be required before Australian troops are deployed. There is no excuse; in response to the shameful and disgusting revelations from the Brereton Inquiry the major parties must support a democratic process to war.

There are appropriate exemptions made in this Bill to avoid interfering with the non-warlike overseas service with which Australian troops are engaged - referring in particular to new subsection 29A(11). There are also appropriate exemptions in the Bill to provide for the practicalities of situations where Parliament cannot immediately meet - referring to subsections 29A(3) and (7), which provide for the Governor-General to be able to make a proclamation regarding the declaration of war, provided that Parliament is then recalled within a period of two days.

It is time that Australia joined its closest allies and like-minded democratic states by involving the Parliament in the decision to deploy the ADF. The entwined tragedies of our recent military misadventures, and the threat that history may soon repeat, make passage of this Bill more urgent than ever. War is never the answer but if there is ever a time that the government of the day decides to send our troops overseas to war then we - the Australian Parliament and, by extension, the Australian people - should get a say.

I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Senator STEELE-JOHN: I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (15:41): I, and also on behalf of Senators Chisholm and Dean Smith, move:

That the time for the presentation of the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia on its inquiry into the destruction of 46,000 year old caves at the Juukan Gorge in the Pilbara region of Western Australia be extended to 18 October 2021.

Question agreed to.

Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (18:17): I move:

That the Senate take note of take note of document no. 4.

The High Court of Australia's annual report for 2019-20 outlines the High Court's response to 'allegations of sexual harassment against a former justice'. Of course, it is Justice Dyson Heydon of whom we speak. I would like to commend the Chief Justice of the High Court for her swift and comprehensive response, a response that stands in absolutely stark contrast to the response of those in this building and this government to similar allegations. The High Court immediately commissioned an independent investigation into the allegations, and the reviewer, Dr Vivienne Thom, was given a broad scope and support to ensure that her review was targeted towards ensuring similar allegations did not arise in future. Dr Thom's report made clear recommendations to review the culture within the High Court and to invite current and former staff to share their experiences and their views on what could be done to protect staff against sexual harassment. The Chief Justice agreed to all the recommendations. She met with the women who came forward; she believed them. She offered an unreserved apology and expressed her shame that the High Court had not provided them a safe workplace. She is taking steps to make sure that their experiences are not repeated and that the court has a robust complaints process that women can have confidence in.

This government's response to allegations of harassment and bullying within parliamentary offices pales in comparison. The complaints process that exists under the finance department remains weak and without practical consequence. There is little appetite from this government to tackle the culture that allows harassment to go unreported and unpunished. Few commitments have been made in the response to the Sex Discrimination Commissioner's Respect@Work recommendations. Coming forward with allegations against those in power will always be difficult and will only happen if we create a culture in which complaints are handled respectfully and confidentially and taken seriously. I commend the brave associate in the High Court who came forward. I commend the High Court for its response and I call on the government to follow the example that the High Court has set, to take serious action to improve the culture in this building and to ensure that this building becomes a place that women can feel safe in.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Finance, Charities and Electoral Matters) (18:20): I table documents responding to an order for the production of documents agreed to on 30 November 2020 relating to a review of the new Federal Court and Federal Circuit Court Amendment (Fees) Regulations 2020, an order for the production of documents agreed to on 1 December 2020 relating to the Australian Energy Market Operator and an order for the production of documents agreed to on 2 December 2020 relating to the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility.

Senator WATT (Queensland) (18:20): In relation to the order for the production of documents listed in notice of motion No. 884 relating to the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I don't want to talk too much on this issue. I have spoken about it previously. Senator Green, with my support, lodged a notice of motion last week on this topic seeking a copy of the review of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, also known as the NAIF, better known as the 'no actual infrastructure fund'. This is the $5 billion fund that was established by this government five years ago to fund projects and create jobs right across northern Australia. Five years on, we've seen that it has actually only spent $218 million. After five years, it has spent less than 5c in the dollar investing in projects across northern Australia and creating jobs across northern Australia. The NAIF was the centrepiece of the government's northern Australia agenda, which was launched five years ago. If there is any symbol of the failure of the government's northern Australia agenda and the fact that it has failed to live up to the expectations that were created, it is the NAIF. As we say often in this chamber, this Prime Minister and his government are very fond of making an announcement and very fond of getting a headline, but not quite so fond of actually following through and delivering. Again, the NAIF is a classic example of this.

I think everyone in northern Australia were really excited about the northern Australia agenda being launched by this government five years ago and were really excited about the possibilities that the NAIF had in store. But unfortunately, it hasn't come to pass. It is just another example of this government making a flashy announcement then running back to Canberra and never actually following through. That's why the opposition last week lodged this notice of motion seeking a copy of the NAIF review. For the fourth time in five years, the NAIF has been reviewed by this government. It's had reviews from the Auditor-General. It's had other reviews internal to government. This review undertaken over the last 12 months has been by the department as required under the NAIF's legislation. As people who have an interest in what's happening in northern Australia and why this government has failed to deliver, we are keen to see this review of the NAIF.

The government has already flagged that it intends to make a number of amendments to the NAIF legislation in the new year. What we know about those so far seems encouraging. We obviously have to wait and see the legislation. Last week, the Senate inquiry into the effectiveness of the northern Australia agenda handed down a unanimous report across all parties making a number of recommendations that we hope the government will pick up when it comes to amending the NAIF's legislation. It would be very helpful to the parliament in making its decision on whether to support the government's amendments if we could actually see the review of the NAIF. I think it'd be very helpful to people across northern Australia who want to understand why the NAIF has been such a dismal failure to actually see the review that the government has been conducting. Let's get to the bottom of why it is that, five years on, less than 5c in the dollar has been spent from the NAIF. Unfortunately, probably the only characteristic of this government that matches its enthusiasm for making announcements that aren't actually delivered is its tendency to be utterly secretive and to hold back information from the Australian public. That's what has happened again in relation to the NAIF review.

I see that the Minister representing the Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia, who is from South Australia, has entered the chamber. Perhaps she can enlighten us as to what the NAIF review has in place, or maybe her interest is primarily in South Australia rather than northern Australia. She and I often talk about this. It is very disappointing that the minister for northern Australia has written to Senator Ruston, as his representing minister, advising that he's not able to table the NAIF review today, as requested by the opposition. His reasoning is quite hard to understand. He goes on to say:

The statutory review of the … (NAIF) was initiated by my predecessor Senator the Hon Matt Canavan.

I'm not quite sure why that's relevant to the decision of this minister—the new minister—not to table the review. Is it that he needs Senator Canavan's permission to table the NAIF review? I actually thought it was Minister Pitt who was now the minister for northern Australia, not former minister Canavan. We're reading every day that Senator Canavan is pretty eager to get back on the frontbench and get back in the saddle, so I'm not sure whether that's what Minister Pitt is referring to here by saying that the review was initiated by his predecessor, Senator Canavan. I really don't understand why that's relevant.

It seems Mr Pitt's real reason for not tabling the review is that the review has not yet been finalised. He says:

The NAIF Act 2016 requires the final report—

by which I think he means the review—

to be tabled in Parliament within 15 days of finalisation.

He makes the usual excuse of the government that they haven't been able to finish it because of COVID, and says:

For this reason the timetable for the review was longer to ensure adequate time for consultation. Once finalised the NAIF review will be tabled in the Parliament.

I'm pleased that the minister has agreed that, at some future date, he will table the review into the NAIF, but I suppose I question why it is that the government are out there making announcements that they will amend the NAIF's legislation and change various things to do with the NAIF, when they haven't even completed the review, let alone been willing to actually table the review. I would have thought that if the government were serious about making changes to the NAIF, as they say they are, they would have actually finished the NAIF review. We could then see what it says. It turns out this NAIF review is ongoing. It must be one of the longest reviews that we've ever seen. I think we've all resigned ourselves to the fact that the NAIF will take, at current rates, about 116 years to spend its $5 billion budget. I can only hope that the NAIF review is not going to take that long as well. We certainly encourage the minister and his department to finish the NAIF review and table the NAIF review so that we can get on and understand what the problem with the NAIF is and exactly what it is we need to fix.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (18:29): I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 24 June 2021:

The fisheries quota system and examining whether the current 'managed microeconomic system' established around a set of individual transferable quotas results in good fishing practice, with particular reference to:

(a) good fishing practice that is ecologically sustainable with an economic dynamic that produces good community outcomes;

(b) how the current quota system affects community fishers;

(c) whether the current system disempowers small fishers and benefits large interest groups;

(d) the enforceability of ecological value on the current system, and the current system's relationship to the health of the fisheries;

(e) whether the current system results in good fishing practice that is ecologically sustainable and economically dynamic, and produces good community outcomes; and

(f) any other related matters.

I put this reference to the Rural and Regional Affairs References Committee, although I was considering potentially putting it to the Environment and Communications References Committee. It's long overdue in this country that we look at a basic and important component of fisheries management. Commonwealth commercial fisheries are designed around transferable statutory fishing rights, or SFRs, and fishing permits. Rules and regulations are attached to each of these. The aim is to establish a managed microeconomic system that creates incentives and guarantees to achieve the ecological, social and economic objectives set out in the Fisheries Management Act 1991.

That's the first point I really wanted to highlight: 1991. The system we have in place for our fisheries management, for transferrable quotas, goes back nearly 30 years. Hopefully, the Senate supports inquiring into this. If so, it will be exactly 30 years since this system was put in place. And, senators, do you know what? It's never been reviewed. I've had the Parliamentary Library do a literature search. Some aspects of the fisheries quota management system have been reviewed, but what about looking at whether it's achieving its purpose? Is it still fit for purpose? Does it achieve the environmental benefits that are so often claimed? Does it achieve the economic and social benefits to communities and so on and so forth? It's a long time since it's been looked at, and I believe it's long overdue for us to scrutinise the system to see if it needs improving, tweaking, reforming and overhauling. What other international benchmarks and standards could we look at, and where do we go from here?

The reason I'm raising this is healthy oceans. Obviously, fisheries management is a critical component of healthy oceans. It's general accepted that Australia, using the fisheries management system, manages its fisheries better than most countries around the world, but that doesn't mean it's perfect. Indeed, there's always room for improvement. Our oceans are coming under more and more pressure as these cumulative impacts build up from ocean pollution like plastics—which we'll debate again tonight—and other sources of pollution as well as overfishing in other parts of the world. A lot of species that we fish, such as bluefin tuna, are migratory. As we see oceans acidify and, more critically, as our oceans warm, we lose important habitat and ecosystems. You would be very familiar with the giant kelp forests off Tasmania, Acting Deputy President Bilyk—an ancient ecosystem dating back millions of years. They stretched from Flinders Island in the north-east of Tasmania to the south-east cape. They have all but disappeared. They provided an immense ecological benefit to commercial fisheries and to all species in the ocean. They've gone. Up in the north, half of the coral cover of the Great Barrier Reef has gone in the last 12 years. And so on and so forth—sea grasses and reefs are under pressure.

My point is a simple one: as our oceans come under more pressure we need to be very careful with how we manage our fisheries. We need to incorporate those changes we are seeing in the broader ecosystems into our fisheries management. We've got to have an ecosystems based approach to fisheries management. But if you look at the terms of reference that I've put up here, this is primarily not about looking at whether we've got our fisheries management right in terms of the science underpinning the quotas and whether we're necessarily managing the environmental aspects of fisheries sustainably. This is looking at the economic benefits of the way that we manage our fisheries. I'm very pleased that my Tasmanian college Senator Duniam is in the chamber tonight. I know he is close to the fishing industry in Tasmania and this is a matter near and dear to his heart, as it is to many Tasmanians, whether they are working in the commercial fishing sector or whether they are one of the many tens of thousands of recreational fishers in the state. By the way, those groups sometimes don't see eye to eye, but they do all agree that we need to manage our fisheries as effectively as possible and we need to get it right. Otherwise, there won't be any fishing in the future like there is today. That's plainly obvious to me—if we don't get it right.

Senator Duniam understands that there is a big question in my home state hanging over whether the transferable quota system—for state fisheries or extending into Commonwealth fisheries—is delivering the economic and social benefits to our community. The Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies did a really interesting report. It was released in December 2019, over a year ago. Very politely—as often happens when a research institution like IMAS, with a lot of eminent scientists, put out a report that's well researched—they very clearly rang the bell that we need to do a lot more work on this. They questioned what benefits the average Tasmanian was getting from their fishery for a number of reasons and said that this needs to be looked at, that it certainly needs to be reviewed and that they didn't have the scope to do that in their report. They raised a number of issues with the quota based system; I'll go through some of those in a second. They said: 'The database is very limited. It's really hard to find information on this. There may be better ways to give benefits to our communities.' So in this inquiry I would like to pose a question to the Senate: has this managed microeconomic system, as I described it, established around this specific set of individual transferrable quotas and permits good fishing practice that is ecologically sustainable and produces good, dynamic economic and social community outcomes?

The terms of reference, as we've set out, are quite broad, deliberately so: Would this fishing quota practice result in good fishing practice, including that it is economically sustainable? How does the current quota system affect community fishers, and how do they feel it affects them? Does the current system disempower smaller fishers and benefit larger fishing groups? How does the quota system interact with the enforceability of ecological value of the current system and the current system's relationships to the health of the fisheries? Does the current system result in good fishing practice that is ecologically sustainable and economically dynamic? What of any other related matters?

Senator Duniam is probably aware that, very recently, the Tasmanian rock lobster industry had their AGM. Rock lobsters, like abalone, are under a lot of pressure in Tasmania. Things have radically changed in the ecosystem, and the industry understands and respects that. They want to put in place a long-term plan for their industry. They want to put in place a 10-year plan that looks at the future of their industry. It would look at a lot of things, like where their markets were going to be given the problems we've had with China recently. They're very aware of how reliant they've been on China. They want to look at environmental changes that they've seen, like the loss of habitat, the loss of reefs—not just the loss of giant kelp reefs but the loss of reefs to invasive sea urchins that are a very, very pervasive problem—and how they interact with other fisheries.

Obviously, Tasmanians in this chamber will understand we've been having to translocate rock lobsters from the south of Tasmania to the east coast so we have fish to catch. We're actually moving them. But that, I'm hearing, is creating problems from the places where they're moving them from, not to mention other aspects of that that I've heard about. The industry passed a motion at their last AGM wanting their representatives to do something about issues, particularly pertaining to ownership of quotas. Quotas can be owned because they're transferrable. They can be owned by corporations and they can be owned by investors, including super funds—how many of them, we don't know. But clearly many of the quotas are owned by foreign entities and foreign interests.

This issue came up—and this is a sensitive issue; I'll give you that—when Tasmanian rock lobsters were sitting on runways in China. The fishermen said to me, 'What we don't get is that we feel like we're being punished because of the trade war,' and the wine industry said the same thing. But their understanding is Chinese interests own a considerable amount of Tasmanian rock lobster quota. They're allowed to own our public resource, our fish, yet they're penalising us on the other hand. They don't quite get how it works. So I wanted to find out more about how much exactly is owned by foreign entities, corporate entities and investors—in short, not owner-operators in the industry—and the answer to that question is: nobody really knows. Talk about beneficial ownership problems within these corporate structures and holding companies; nobody really knows who owns these quotas.

There are some rules around maximum ownership, but this is not just a problem that Australians are grappling with. This transferable quota system that's been used in fisheries overseas has led to a concentration of ownership in fisheries, where we're seeing bigger scale operations push out smaller owners. If you believe in the free market, you can say, 'Well, that's fine; that's what the free market's dictating.' But it's having impacts. Where I have my house in Bicheno, there are only two rock lobster boats left. There used to be 40 or 50. The Sunday session there used to be the most swinging Sunday session in the state. The pub doesn't even exist anymore. We have penguin tours and other things now that are filling the gap. But my point is this: the fisheries quota system might have been successfully managing our fishery compared to other jurisdictions internationally, but there really aren't that many fishermen left. Other countries have looked at this and said that, if you want to own quota, if you want to own our fisheries, you need to be whatever the nationality is. You need to Australian; you need to be Tasmanian. Other countries, including European countries, have said that you don't necessarily have to be, for example, Norwegian, but you need to have operated here for eight years as an owner-operator. They say: 'We want to see that you've committed yourself. You've bought your boat, you're employing locals, and you're committed to the long term of this industry, to its sustainability and its future.'

The fishermen in Tasmania don't even know what their succession plan is. This is not just a problem with fisheries. I've seen it in the wine industry and others. They've invested their livelihoods; they've bought all this knowledge from fishing, but where do they go? Do they just sell their quota to a foreign superannuation company or a US pension fund? What happens then? Who do they bring in to operate? I think it's high time we at least explore these issues. I'm not going to pre-empt what the answers are; I don't know that. But I know there are a lot of people out there with very strong views that it's time for a review. They have very strong views that things need to change if we're going to better manage our fisheries.