Ms WORTH(11.39 a.m.) —The government has introduced new rules to ensure that Australia does not take on international obligations without proper scrutiny in the parliament. But that does not imply that we are proposing to take our international obligations lightly. Quite the contrary: our intention is to ensure that we fully understand what international rules mean for Australia before we give effect to them.

This legislation rectifies a situation in which Australia took on international rules without properly understanding their implications. As a result, the legislation that was passed has been found to be out of step with international practice and international law. We are now putting into place a more thorough legislative instrument to ensure that Australia meets conscientiously the obligations taken on almost exactly four years ago when the convention came into force.

It is not only in accordance with our international obligations that the current act needs amendment. The act as it stands is cumbersome and inflexible, and needs adjusting to ensure that it can be administered efficiently and with the flexibility needed in the various circumstances that are likely to occur from time to time.

The extension of the ambit of this act to include wastes for recovery and recycling is highly significant. It brings under the act a far wider range of materials than has been covered up to now. These materials include many metal bearing weights. Some of these are things such as spent lead acid batteries which are heavily traded around the world, and where most parties accept that the trade can easily involve subjecting other countries and their communities to significant environmental risks associated with secondary smelting of lead.

Other materials are the secondary materials produced in metal refining. There are processes established by this act to ensure that careful attention is paid to whether these materials should be judged to be wastes or not, and whether they are hazardous or not. In general, only if they pass both tests—that is, that they are both wastes and hazardous—will they be covered by the act.

These processes are necessary to ensure that the act does not inadvertently pick up materials which do not present an environmental threat and should not be regulated. Most of Australia's trade in hazardous waste, especially in the last couple of years, has occurred with other countries of the OECD. In 1992, OECD countries agreed on a separate and particular regime for managing trade in hazardous waste, using a listing system dividing hazardous waste into red, amber and green categories on the basis of comparative hazard.

Under the Basel convention such an agreement is possible and the act makes provision for such agreements to be given recognition and for their rules to be established by regulation. One of the conditions is that the rules established by such separate agreements would not reduce the level of environment protection provided.

This bill has been the subject of extensive consultation processes. As is the nature of things, not everybody involved in those consultations finds every aspect of the bill ideal. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the bill has been substantially improved by the discussions that have taken place on it and the final outcomes represent the most satisfactory reconciliation of competing interest that could be arrived at. Industry interests have advised that they support passage of this bill.

All international instruments relating to trade in hazardous waste have been troubled by controversy on how to accurately define hazardous waste and also on the degree to which hazardous waste should be treated as a range of materials for which separate arrangements are needed. Countries of the OECD solve this problem by drawing up detailed lists of wastes and developing a control system with varying degrees of restraint, depending on how hazardous the waste is.

The Basel convention set up a somewhat different system which relied on a short list of waste streams and contaminates, and a list of hazards. The trouble with this system was that it did not provide the level of certainty which countries actually needed when they were trying to give effect to the convention on a case by case basis.

In September last year, at the third meeting of the conference of the parties, there was agreement that priority attention should be given to reducing the uncertainties surrounding which wastes are covered by the convention. Several meetings have now been held. Progress has been encouraging, and at the most recent meeting of the convention's technical working group in Kuala Lumpur last month delegates arrived at a provisional listing of wastes, which goes some considerable way towards providing the certainty that Australia and other countries have been seeking.

The draft lists drawn up include those agreed to be subject to the convention, those agreed not to be subject to the convention, those on which a decision has yet to be taken, and even some which perhaps ought to be subject to the convention but appear not to be. These lists as yet have no legal significance and that cannot be expected for some time. However, they do provide useful guidance to countries in making decisions about what materials should and should not be covered. I would merely note here that many of the materials of most concern to Australia have now been settled, including many now on the list of non-wastes. That has provided considerable reassurance to parts of industry.

There has been criticism in some quarters of the Basel convention as a piece of international law. Most international conventions are inherently imperfect, negotiated as they are by compromise amongst countries whose vital interests all differ. On the other hand, most international conventions allow a degree of flexibility in their application. Concerns over the Basel convention will not be resolved by pointing out its flaws. They will only be resolved by working within the convention forums for a process of incremental improvement. These are the rules that our trading partners have agreed to and we must proceed hand in hand with them in the process of debate and discussion aimed at generating better outcomes both for the international environment and for Australia's trading interests.

The debate about trade and the environment is a very active one and the Basel convention is a concrete example of that debate. We can use the convention in some ways as a test case in order to find solutions which provide the best level of environment protection for the vulnerable, without imposing unnecessary constraints upon trade. The debate on these issues in Australia has been a lively one and we are now well positioned to contribute to international discussions in a constructive and helpful manner.

There is plenty of lively debate in Australia these days on environmental issues—and I would say so there should be. Last year there were significant protests over nuclear testing in the South Pacific and expressions of fears and concern for that environment and the South Pacific in general. Now we will have, and I am sure we will continue to have, community discussion and, I believe, ultimate anger as minority groups join forces in the other place to prevent the implementation of our $1 billion Natural Heritage Trust of Australia. Some in the other place seem to have no understanding of the good commonsense of selling off one-third of one national treasure to invest in another national treasure.

Such an investment would fund a national vegetation initiative to tackle Australia's land and water degradation problems; the rehabilitation of the Murray-Darling Basin through the implementation of the Murray-Darling 2001 project; the undertaking of a national land and water resources audit; the implementation of a comprehensive national reserve system to protect Australia's biodiversity; and the coast and clean seas initiative to tackle the pollution problems in our coastal areas. The people attempting to block these initiatives are the very ones who claim to have special interests in our environment.

Environment and hazardous waste issues should be considered globally and locally. There are in my own electorate a number of local environment issues that I have addressed on other occasions. One such issue is a very important one, and that has been the dumping of over 200,000 tonnes of hazardous waste at the Australian National site at the Islington Railyards at Kilburn. The former Minister for Transport and now shadow minister for foreign affairs (Mr Brereton) announced a $5 million clean-up of part of that site, believe it or not, three or four days before the election was announced.

This happened after two years of agitation on my part; after criticism of the Health Commission in South Australia about a previous proposed clean-up; after intervention on the part of South Australia's Environment Protection Authority; and only after a report which the then minister himself in fact ordered from the CSIRO which found:

In its current condition the Islington Railyards northern site area represents a potential health hazard to nearby residents and workers.

The pre-election announcement was just one more political stunt, but I should put on the record that, following the change of government on 2 March, I have already had meetings with the Minister for the Environment in South Australia, David Wotton, the federal Minister for Transport and Regional Development (Mr Sharp) and the Minister for the Environment (Senator Hill), and have made representations to the Minister for Finance (Mr Fahey).

I am now quite determined that there will be proper action on this issue, action made essential after previous neglect, and made more difficult because of the Beazley black hole. I reiterate: we have national obligations, international obligations and local obligations to the environment, which is now considered to be such an important issue—and, I would argue, belatedly considered so. I commend the bill to the House.