House Standing Committee on Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water - Melbourne, VIC (part 2 of 2)
26 August 2026
Contents updated on 26 Aug 2026
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
House Standing Committee on Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water Australian Parliament
00:00 - 03:21
Speaker 12
At the same time, and landfill bans in the scheme hadn't quite got on its legs. So that timing was okay, but I probably would have given more of a buffer just to allow that to occur. So the landfill bans are important, meaningful penalties and education regarding solar recycling and follow-up, and I mean meaningful penalties and education. And I think that's where a lot of these funds can flow. I think the registered installers or those who are taking care of that certificate of recycling, that instrument that is now brought into the overall tracking, excuse me, the accreditation process we talked about.
So payment at waste-arising event allows for, you know, the approved channels to conduct the service and have that service verified. And then I think, you know, as I mentioned, the independent body that has the role of accreditation, has the register, has the core data, the reporting, and lets the commercial providers solve the problem. So government then sets the rules, controls the accreditation, the registers and so on, and enforces non-compliance. Commercial providers are then free to build and operate competing apps, payment services, and delivery systems that connects to the official register through open standards. If a fund exists, the Commonwealth body should control its rules, eligibility, and verification, but doesn't need to build and operate payment technology and execution models on how that's done.
So we ask the committee to put future cost of where waste arises, dealing separately with stockpiles, closing the landfill route, recording each transfer, keeping participation open, avoiding closed procurements, avoiding the PRO model, single PRO model if possible, and as I said, resolve the legacy issue and focus on the governance and the data. So where we see schemes fail or falter, perhaps fail's a bit harsh, but falter, tends to be on architecture, the actual architecture and design of it. You know, sometimes the money arrives before the rules do. I would say that that probably occurred in the B-cycle example where they'd already got the approvals and so forth in place, looked at membership, etc., and then were trying to figure out what it is that they were going to do and what standards they were going to have. And at that time, there was only sort of one major recycler, so there was influence there in terms of what those rules in fact became.
Where we also see them falling on architecture, as I mentioned, is the one organization holding the accreditation, the data, the money, and the market access at the same time, problematic. And introducing pilots now, set that in motion. It starts to crystallize what eventually becomes the design and you start to put in place things that you can't unravel or may not be able to unravel. So I think we can shortcut that process through the model we're proposing today. Other reasons for falling is when the scheme hits, which sometimes you can't avoid, but there's a lack at that time of genuine recycling players.
The rest of the transcript is for Pro customers
Unlock the full transcript, chat, and every analysis feature with Polyfact Pro.
The video itself stays free to watch, in full, no account needed.
Start a free trial