THE HON TANYA PLIBERSEK MP
MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND WATER
E&OE TRANSCRIPT
RADIO INTERVIEW
ABC RADIO NATIONAL DRIVE WITH ANDY PARK
THURSDAY, 22 FEBRUARY 2024
SUBJECTS: FIGHTING FASHION WASTE, ENVIRONMENT LAW REFORM, NATIONAL EPA.
ANDY PARK: Let me ask you, what kind of clothes shopper are you? Are you a regular at Zara or H&M, or do you like to invest in your clothes, really spending time and choosing more expensive items that stand the test of time even if fashion moves on?
We are told that well‑made clothing is much better for the environment with less waste. The only problem is they're not so great for the hip pocket. The clothing industry itself is the fourth-most polluting industry in the world, generating somewhere between 4 and 8 per cent of global emissions.
It's a huge issue that the Federal Environment Minister, Tanya Plibersek, wants to tackle. Minister, welcome back to RN Drive.
TANYA PLIBERSEK, MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND WATER: Always a pleasure to be with you, Andy.
ANDY PARK: Now, my wife is at pains to tell me that I don't have a sartorial eye, but you can't tell me that you don't have a few cheap $5 t‑shirts in the back of the closet, such is the irresistibility of these sort of garments. So, what mechanisms do you think will kind of meet that irresistibility to change consumer behaviour?
MINISTER PLIBERSEK: Yeah. Well, this is certainly not an argument against affordable clothing. I think lots of families, certainly I'm not immune to the draw of the $5 t‑shirt, but don't just wear it once. I mean that's really the message here - don't wear it once and send it to landfill.
And at the moment we've got a fashion industry globally that is, as you say, one of the most polluting industries in the world. In fact 10 per cent of humanity’s carbon emissions come from the fashion industry, it's more than international flights and maritime shipping combined.
And right here in Australia we send about 227,000 tonnes of clothing to landfill every year, and we export another 100,000 tonnes, and that ends up in landfill overseas.
So it is highly polluting. And what we're asking the fashion industry to do is take some responsibility for the design of products, make sure that they're choosing fabrics, for example, that have less impact on the planet. And also take responsibility for the lifecycle and disposal of those products.
ANDY PARK: And the fashion industry, I mean I'm sure they understand the moral argument, the theoretical argument, but essentially, do they just hear "This is going to cost us more, and we're going to have to pass it on to the consumer?" How do you, particularly with your comment about the cost‑of‑living crisis, everyone's entitled to a shirt on their back, how do you avoid that very necessary flow‑on of cost?
MINISTER PLIBERSEK: I think it's really important to keep saying this, this is not an argument for more expensive clothing, it's an argument for more thoughtful design and purchase and disposal of clothing.
At the moment, you know, you picture the scenario -the kids are scrolling through Instagram, some influencer's wearing acute t‑shirt, they click on that, they can buy it in the app, it gets delivered two days later. "Oh, it doesn't fit properly, it's a bit itchy, I've worn it twice." Usually they don't put it straight in the bin, usually they send it to ‑ and people, consumers think they're doing the right thing, they send it to Vinnies or Salvos, they think it's going to be bought by someone else and given a second life.
The sheer volume of this stuff means that most of it isn't sold by those charity clothing reselling outfits, and so ends up in landfill. In fact the charities spend about $18 million a year that they should be spending on needy Australians, they spend that $18 million a year actually disposing of the overwhelming amount of donations they get that they can't possibly resell. What I'd like is for the industry to take the lead, and the Australian Fashion Council set up this voluntary product stewardship scheme called "Seamless". We've already had some huge brands join up. In fact when it was launched they had Big W, Rip Curl, The Iconic, RM Williams, David Jones and Lorna Jane, and since then Sussan Group and Cotton On Group have both joined. Like these are massive sellers of clothing here in Australia. If we can get some more Australian brands to sign up to Seamless, what they will be doing is incentivising clothing design to be more durable, repairable, sustainable, recyclable, and also expanding clothing collection and sorting so that we can have more effective recycling.
ANDY PARK: And you've given the Australian ‑ well, you're working with the Australian Fashion Council -you've given the industry till, like July to sort of step up before taking a decision on this levy. What happens if there isn't unanimity in the industry by then, what sticks legislatively can you wield?
MINISTER PLIBERSEK: Yeah. We're not talking about a government levy, what we're suggesting is that ‑ strongly suggesting is that more brands sign up to the Seamless Product Stewardship Scheme. If they don't do it voluntarily, I will look at my regulatory options. It is a more involved process when I have to get together with the states and territories and work out these regulations. I would prefer the industry, I'd strongly prefer them to get their act together and do it themselves, but if they don't do it themselves, we can't continue just to see these rivers of fabrics that last for hundreds of years flowing into our landfills. Like the average pair of tights - there you are exercising, hoping for a nice long life, well, your exercise shorts will outlive you five‑fold. They've got a 500 year life in landfill, and as they breakdown they release micro‑plastics into the environment. We need to do better.
ANDY PARK: Well, that's roughly how long I wear a $5 t‑shirt for, so I'm certainly doing my part.
MINISTER PLIBERSEK: Excellent. I'm happy to hear that.
ANDY PARK: I want to ask you now about the proposed reforms to Australia's National Environment Law. The Albanese Government had pledged to fix Australia’s environment laws to make them more iron‑clad. A group of environmental lawyers have travelled to Parliament House today to express concerns about loopholes in the draft laws, which loggers will be able to exploit. What's your response?
MINISTER PLIBERSEK: Well, we're still consulting on the next tranche of environmental law reforms. So we've already done the first tranche at the end of last year. We expanded the water trigger in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to make sure that whenever you've got large coal‑mining projects or gas projects that might have an impact on water, that that has to be considered under the EPBC Act. So we did tranche one already. We're consulting on tranche two. So I think it's a bit early for them to be talking about what's not in it. And we're still working on ‑
ANDY PARK: Have you met with the delegation in Canberra today, and will you?
MINISTER PLIBERSEK: Well, I'm in Sydney today, so what's happening in Canberra today is the next round of consultations on the law reforms, and their comments will be taken into account just as all of the other groups -the dozens of other groups that are being consulted today will be taken into account.
ANDY PARK: The draft laws basically remove legal protections available for critical habitat, replacing them instead with terms like "irreplaceable". What sort of language seems really kind of more ambiguous, why is this, because I mean what sort of benefit are we reaping here?
MINISTER PLIBERSEK: I think you've got the wrong end of the stick. What we're doing with these law reforms is strengthening protections for the environment, because our environment has been declining for too long in Australia. When we came into government, the State of the Environment Report - I released the State of the Environment Report that had been hidden by the previous government, and that report showed unequivocally how bad things are going. We've got almost 2,000 plants and animals on our threatened species list at the moment, and we continue to do ‑
ANDY PARK: Well, Minister, you say ‑
MINISTER PLIBERSEK: ‑ if we continue to do what we're doing, we're going to continue to get these same bad results. So we are strengthening protections for the environment, and we're changing the laws to make sure we can make faster, clearer decisions for project proponents.
ANDY PARK: You say I've got the wrong end of the stick, but this draft also doesn't mention halting the decline of threatened species at a time when really need strengthened protection for critical habitats like koalas, to make sure they don't become extinct. I'm sure you will agree.
MINISTER PLIBERSEK: This is the problem with taking a small part of a very large consultation job. We've already made a commitment as a government to zero new extinctions, and we're working very hard on that commitment, and that includes things like saying that we will make sure that our new environmental laws cover regional forestry agreements, which is one of the things that the environmental movement have been working very hard to see implemented.
ANDY PARK: So will you seriously consider this land‑clearing trigger that these lawyers are calling for?
MINISTER PLIBERSEK: Well, I'll consider all of the comments that are being made during the consultation on these new laws. There's really so much opportunity for people to have their say on this, including these groups. We had an online forum recently where 2,000 people were able to hear about the proposals for the legislative changes that we're proposing. This is not an easy job, it is a complex job. There will be lots of opportunities for people to have their say, and I'll consider these comments with just as much attention and weight as I do all of the other comments that I'm getting from other environmental organisations, and from project proponents. You know, we're living in a country where we want to see more renewable energy projects built, more housing built, the same sort of big transport projects and others that are really important to people's quality of life and economic development in this country. That's all important, so is protecting our natural environment, and our laws need to give a better balance to both of those things. Because at the moment we're not protecting the environment, and we've got slow, complex, convoluted processes for business.
ANDY PARK: Well, just lastly, Minister, you mentioned these convoluted processes for businesses. As part of these reforms the Albanese Government decided to establish a national Environment Protection Agency. Obviously each state and territory has its own EPA. Does this create just another layer of bureaucracy, and you know, unnecessary red tape around environmental protections? Is it a double‑up, is my question?
MINISTER PLIBERSEK: No, it's absolutely vital that we have a strong cop on the beat at a national level, and I can tell you, one of the early tasks I set my department was to go and have a look at the environmental offsets that have been granted for previous projects to see whether those conditions that had been placed on developments had been properly adhered to. The message isn't great on that, and in fact making sure that we've got a strong environmental cop on the beat is a really very important element of our law reform. And I'm in New South Wales today, I'm speaking to you from a state that is facing a massive problem with pollution in mulch, the asbestos pollution in mulch. It shows you how very important it is to have a body that can undertake these sorts of assessments, that has the skill, the capability and the legislative power to do it.
ANDY PARK: We'll have to leave it there. The Federal Minister for the Environment, Tanya Plibersek. Always a pleasure. Thanks for your time this afternoon.
MINISTER PLIBERSEK: Lovely to talk to you. Thank you, Andy.
END
