HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-07-22 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: Mr Acting Chairman, I draw your attention to the state of the committee.

A quorum having been formed:

Clauses 1 to 7 passed.

Clause 8.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I move:

Page 5, line 2 [clause 8(1), inserted definition of approved refund marking]—

Delete 'approved by the Authority' and substitute:

specified by the Authority as a condition of an approval

Perhaps I could speak to all of the amendments at one time. The government proposes some further in-house amendments to the Environment Protection (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2008, which are simply drafting improvements. Under the current act a refund marking is subject to approval by the authority. Under the miscellaneous amendment bill a refund marking is approved as a condition of an approval of a class of containers as category A or B.

This may cause a problem because an approved refund marking, as a condition of an approval of a class of containers, may be varied or revoked. That is under proposed section 68(6). However, it is not possible to include any transitional provisions in such a variation. This ability has been lost in the translation of the container deposit scheme to the miscellaneous amendment bill. This has become apparent only now and, as such, the following amendments are proposed: amendments 1, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 12 are proposed in order to emphasise the status of an approved refund marking as a condition of an approval of a class of containers.

After examination of approvals or refund markings in past Gazette notices, it has been decided that refund marking should be specified by the authority as a condition of approval of a class of containers rather than approved as a condition of approval. The amendments have been drafted on that assumption. The refund marking, although still called an approved refund marking, will now be specified by the authority as a condition of an approval of a class of containers as category A or category B containers.

The amendments also put beyond doubt the ability to include, when varying or revoking such a condition, transitional provisions which will be able to be broader than under the current act and also for the provisions of the notice to have effect from the date of publication of the variation or revocation for a future date. I will discuss those amendments as we get to them, but those are essentially my comments in relation to amendments 1, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 12.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Could the minister be more specific in relation to his reference to transitional arrangements? Can he indicate whether the transition will take place on a single day or whether there will be a period of, say, months in which it takes place.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: My advice is that it is a single day.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I move:

Page 5, after line 28—After subclause (1) insert:

(1a) Section 65, definition of refund marking—delete the definition.

Amendment 2 removes the definition of 'refund marking'. It is a drafting improvement. The definition of 'refund marking' was retained from the current section 65 but is superfluous. The definition of 'approved refund marking' is sufficient.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 9 passed.

Clause 10.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I move:

Page 7, line 4 [clause 10, inserted section 68(3)(a)(i)]—

Delete 'approved' and substitute: specified.

Amendment No. 3 is consequential upon amendment No. 1.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I move:

Page 7, line 41 [clause 10, inserted section 68(7)]—

Delete 'in respect of a class of containers'.

Amendment No. 4 is also a drafting improvement. Again, the words were retained from section 69 but are unnecessary.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I move:

Page 8—

Line 8 [clause 10, inserted section 68(9)]—Delete 'of approval'.

Line 9 [clause 10, inserted section 68(9)(a)]—After 'must' insert: ,in the case of a notice of approval,

These amendments are both consequential upon amendment No. 1.

Amendments carried.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I move:

Page 8, lines 21 and 22 [clause 10, inserted section 68(9)(b)]—

Delete 'in respect of which an approval under this section applies, whether the containers' and substitute: that.

This amendment is consequential upon amendment No. 1.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I indicate that I will not be moving my amendment, but I would place on the record some concerns of the recycling industry, and the reasons for seeking to have the amendments drafted by parliamentary counsel were contained in my second reading contribution. All members would have received a letter from Mr Edward Nixon of Statewide Recycling, who has had significant concerns about cash flows in relation to this. A number of people are concerned that the government—regardless of whether this legislation, which is more of a facilitation to free up the system rather than addressing the issue of the 5¢ to 10¢ increase per se, is passed—is determined to proceed with the date of 1 September. Their wish is that the bill be passed, and I have spoken to my counterpart in the House of Assembly, Steven Griffiths, who handles environmental bills on behalf of the Liberal Party, so we can facilitate the bill's passage through both houses to allow it to be put in place in time.

I have some questions in relation to this whole issue and ask the minister to comment on the statement that the EPA negotiated an 18 month lead-in time for manufacturers to change to a 10¢ refund marking. Will the minister advise whether that is the case, and what are the practical implications of that lead-in time?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: My advice is that originally a lead-in time was considered, but following further consideration of this matter it was decided that a straight change over system on the one day would be much less expensive for industry because, if you had a phase-in period, you would have to double handle those with the 5¢ deposit and those with the 10¢ deposit, but if the changeover was on the one day it was decided that it would be less expensive for industry than a phased in arrangement where you would have to have double handling. That came about as a result of significant consultation with industry.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Will the minister advise what measures are being undertaken prior to that single date to prevent anybody along that chain from hoarding containers for the express purpose of doubling their value on the implementation date?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: My advice is that at a local level it is considered that the question of people hoarding 5¢ containers would be a relatively minor problem. However, at an interstate level, where there is the potential for that, my advice is that the bill specifically addresses that question with significant penalties involved for anyone who should seek to exploit the changeover from 5¢ to 10¢ deposits.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Do I understand from the minister's answer that there are no specific additional measures prior to 1 September that the government is undertaking? The way I see it, the changeover date is a problem at the moment; and I am sure that as the date draws nearer it will continue to be a problem. It is not so much households as those who are able to collect large amounts. We are in a phase where it would be advantageous for anyone seeking to rort the system to be hoarding right now. So, my concern is: are any additional measures being undertaken to deal with that problem?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: My advice is that, if this bill passes reasonably quickly (and we appreciate the support of the opposition in enabling that to happen), the government believes the measures contained in the bill should be effective in terms of preventing that sort of potential abuse of the system, particularly in relation to the interstate measures. Were the bill not to pass, the EPA would have to fall back on some short-term measures—such as, for example, giving the handlers the capacity to reject containers that they reasonably suspected of being hoarded. But those short-term measures would be necessary, on my advice, only if the bill were not passed.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: My next question is: what is the status of the proposed regulations?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: My advice is that there is a cabinet submission ready to go, as soon as the bill is passed, in relation to the regulations. In other words, they are ready to go. Obviously, if the bill did not pass and some interim powers were needed, that would have to be done fairly quickly. I understand the drafting instructions are fully prepared so, presumably, it would not take long to do the drafting once the cabinet submission was approved.

Clause as amended passed.

Clause 11.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I move:

Page 12, line 10 [clause 11(1)]—After 'marking' insert:

, or a former approved refund marking,

I will speak to both amendments 8 and 9, which make clear that containers bearing the refund marking, or a former approved refund marking, that is, showing 5¢ in the case of category B containers, would all have to be accepted. It would be up to the authority to vary approvals or conditions of approvals in order to stop manufacturers, distributors or retailers using certain refund markings at the particular time. Sooner or later, the containers bearing obsolete refund marking would disappear from the wider stream.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I will not be proceeding with any of my amendments.

Clause as amended passed.

Clause 12.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I move:

Page 12, line 32—After 'marking' insert:

, or a former approved refund marking.

As I indicated earlier, both amendments Nos 8 and 9 in my name relate to containers bearing the refund marking or a former approved refund marking showing 5¢ in the case of category B containers. It will have to be accepted and up to the authority to vary approvals or conditions of approvals in order to stop manufacturers, distributors and retailers using certain refund markings at a particular time.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I move:

Page 13, line 10—Delete 'a corresponding jurisdiction' and substitute:

in a jurisdiction in which a corresponding law is in force.

This amendment makes a minor drafting correction. The words in proposed section 71(2)(c), 'a corresponding jurisdiction', should read 'in a jurisdiction in which a corresponding law is in force'. The amendment will make the wording consistent with that in proposed section 70(2)(b).

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 13 to 21 passed.

Clause 22.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I move:

Page 17—After line 13, after subclause(2) insert:

(3) Schedule 1, Part A, clause 3(3)(h)—After 'bearing' insert

an approved

This amendment is consequential upon amendment No. 2.

Amendment carried; clause passed.

Schedule.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I move:

Page 17, line 32—Delete 'an approval of the refund marking' and substitute:

if it were a marking specified by the Authority as a condition of approval.

This amendment is consequential on amendment No. 1.

Amendment carried; schedule as amended passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendments.

Third Reading

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Police, Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning) (16:18): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

In moving the third reading, I thank the council for its assistance in the passage of the bill.

Bill read a third time and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT