ZERO WASTE SA (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 15 February 2012.)

Mr MARSHALL (Norwood) (15:57): I indicate to the house that I will be the lead speaker for the opposition on this bill. This bill, of course, was introduced by the government in September last year, and I would like to thank the minister and his office for the briefing that they provided to the opposition on this bill. It seeks to amend the Zero Waste SA Act 2004 not with massive amendments but with two relatively minor, but nevertheless important, amendments that will aid the efficient operation of this statutory authority.

The Office of Zero Waste SA was established in 2003 and the act was put in place in 2004. It is an agency of government that is supported by the opposition and its aspiration of course is to eliminate waste in South Australia. It has a range of programs in place which help it to achieve those goals and aspirations.

The bill that is before us at the moment provides for two amendments. I will deal with the insertion of section 13A first. This seeks to provide delegation authority to the board, the CEO or a committee of the board to make decisions. We support this amendment wholeheartedly. It is a section that exists in a lot of other legislation and it will aid Zero Waste in the timely execution of its activities.

The other amendment, of course, is the insertion of section 7A which seeks to apply the Public Finance and Audit Act 1987 to this agency. I am assured by the minister that this will not affect the operation, and in fact they have been operating not so much technically under the act but under the auspices or the intent of the act since it was established. This is an opportunity to tidy up the Zero Waste SA Act. Of course, they are already audited, so it will not affect the auditing, but it will address the onus of the agency to obey Treasurer's Instructions.

In particular, this insertion refers to the Waste to Resources Fund, and on that I would like to make a couple of short comments. For those of you who do not know, the Waste to Resources Fund is also incorporated into the Zero Waste SA Act. In fact, the money that goes into the Waste to Resources Fund is derived from the solid waste levy here in South Australia. The solid waste levy this year is $35 a tonne, and it was $26 a tonne last year; 50 per cent of the solid waste levy goes into the Zero Waste SA Waste to Resources Fund each year. At the moment I think it is delivering something like $17 million into that fund and, of course, that fund seems to be accumulating each and every year.

This year, the budget for Zero Waste SA is $8.9 million. I see in the forward estimates that the budget for Zero Waste SA will be going down to $8.5 million next year so, despite the continual accumulation of money in the Waste to Resources Fund, we have a diminishing budget being spent to achieve those objectives of this Zero Waste SA Act. In fact, if we look at the 'Business Plan: 2011-12 and Future Directions: 2013-14' published by Zero Waste SA, we can see on page 30, under the heading Budget, that the Waste to Resources Fund at the end of this year will sit at $37 million; next year, $44 million; and, in 2013-14, at almost $52 million. As I said, that is despite the expenditure authority of Zero Waste SA still diminishing from $8.9 million this year down to $8.4 million in the 2012-13 year.

This is, of course, a concern to the opposition because we believe that the original intent of the Waste to Resources Fund was to accumulate a fund and to put that money into operation to drive our aspirations to decrease resources going to landfill each year. It is quite clear to us at the moment that it is simply a massive accumulation of funds by the government. We certainly need to be very careful when we provide the government with the ability for the agency to follow the Treasurer's Instructions that the Treasurer does not instruct the agency to spend this money on things other than on what they are required to under this act. We will be watching that very carefully.

I also raise the concern that the opposition raised in the last three or four months, that is, the plan for the government to further increase the solid waste levy in South Australia. As I said, at the moment it sits at $35 a tonne. The government has received reports now from independent contractors looking at the likelihood of increasing the solid waste levy up to $50 a tonne. This is not something that the opposition is necessarily saying is a bad thing, but if there is no actual use for these funds that are being accumulated then we would certainly be opposing it at this stage.

The real issue is that this significantly drives up the costs of the local government sector, which ultimately pays the solid waste levy. It also increases the cost to ratepayers and businesses in South Australia. Again, I say that if it was going to be used in terms of meeting the objectives of the agency then we could discuss that, but when it is just being used to accumulate in a government fund we would certainly be opposing that. In regard to the proposed amendments, I indicate that the opposition will be supporting both these amendments. With that, I conclude my remarks.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (16:04): I rise to speak on this subject because it has been a bit of a favourite of mine ever since the ERD Committee did a report on this subject way back on 7 December 2004. In fact, it was probably the forerunner of legislation such as this, because it became a very topical issue. Even reading the report after all these years, it certainly was a very, very good report by a very, very good committee and chaired by a very, very good chairman.

I know that it is a so-called 'sexy' subject in more ways than one, but one has to be careful with sexy subjects because they can come back and haunt you, particularly in relation to this subject, because zero waste has to be sustainable and, if it is not, we have to know what it is costing the taxpayer. A lot of people believed that it was not possible to ever have a zero waste policy. I do not think we can ever quite achieve it, but I think that we can get pretty close. I think that a lot of us are prepared to say, 'Okay, it might be cheaper to just dump it,' but I think that in the long term the cost to society, to the community and, indeed, to the environment would be a lot more expensive than that.

I think that we are all quite used to the idea of doing our bit, but back then, in 2004, it was not quite the subject on everyone's lips. Today things have certainly changed. I think that 95 per cent of the population does the right thing. We have known of some cases where recycling projects have not been revenue neutral—in fact, they have been a pretty big drain on some of our local governments. I think that in relation to these amendments to the legislation, as the shadow minister (the member for Norwood) has just said, we are supporting both of them purely because it is common sense to do so.

I just wonder why initially we did not put this in the original act, particularly because Zero Waste SA is currently not captured by the Public Finance and Audit Act 1987 and, as a result, is not answerable to the Treasury department for its financial decisions. One would question why. Did it just escape? I just wonder why that was not put in the original act because most legislation comes under that. Why was this legislation left out, because of all things the cost of recycling and the cost of operating this zero waste area is an unknown.

As the member for Norwood just said, who is keeping an eye on the people who work in this department? Who are they accountable to? Well, they were not accountable. In this instance, in these straitened financial times, it is good that we are saying, 'Hey, you guys are going to be subject to the Public Finance and Audit Act 1987.'

The second amendment which we also agree with is that Zero Waste SA currently has no power for the delegation of funds to carry out functions legislated for in the act. Each time a decision is made, the department must defer to the board for confirmation regardless of the size. I think that is a common-sense move as well, because if you are going to make these people accountable you have to give them the flexibility to be able to make decisions and make them quickly and without any of the bureaucratic nonsense that can go with it.

Even though it is a small bill it is an important one. I hope that we always try to achieve zero waste. I do not think that we have achieved it yet, but it is certainly a good goal. As technology improves bit by bit I think that we are winning this battle. I think that the most important thing is that we do not create the waste in the first place, and we have come a long way there, particularly with container legislation.

I am very sad that I am no longer a member of the ERD Committee because one of my favourite subjects when I attended a conference interstate was the CDL legislation from South Australia. It is still the only one in the country, and I cannot believe that is the case. The container deposit legislation in South Australia has stood the test time. In fact, the last increase was supported by both sides of this house, and when you go to the interstate conferences they are all saying, 'Yes, yes, yes'—they all support the concept but they never, ever achieve it. I do not know why because they have only to look at South Australia and see that it has been a big success here. You know where the state borders are. Just look on the side of the road, because you will see that the South Australian side is clean and the Victorian and New South Wales' sides are dirty. There is, of course, the complication where a lot of people pick up the cans in New South Wales and squish them up and then cash them in in South Australia. That is why you cannot see what tag is on them. I think we have led the way on issues like that. I will miss not going to the ERD conference and making my normal speech on the matter; it always brings a few chuckles.

Ms Thompson: You will get a special invitation.

Mr VENNING: Am I getting a special invitation? Well, that is on the record. Thank you very much; I shall accept. It is a serious matter. I have always been very keen. I would love to quote from the report but, in view of the time, I will not. A lot of those issues were brought up so long ago—eight or nine years ago—and we can see what has happened in time. The committee certainly did a great job on that report and I encourage members to read it. Our committees do a great job. This is just one which is committed to the history of this place for people to read.

I certainly support this legislation. I commend the shadow minister for leading the charge for us and putting the case to our party room, and also the minister, who is a bit of a mate of mine, I suppose you would say. We get on reasonably well; we have not had an argument yet. I commend this legislation to the house and support the shadow minister.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (16:11): I rise to indicate that I, too, support the Zero Waste SA (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2012. As our lead speaker, the shadow minister for the environment has ably outlined the opposition's position and the reasons for it, and I will not repeat those. However, I wish to make a number of comments.

First, I do not think there is any question that South Australians understand that the zero waste levy is a tax and, like a lot of other levies, it is introduced with a very good objective: in this case to protect the environment against landfill. The application of those funds is therefore important to achieve that.

Under our current model in the legislation, 50 per cent of the levy that is imposed is placed in the fund to facilitate projects on application. Some people would say that there could be some limitations on that because of the amount that is able to be currently approved for the purpose of projects and whether that would inhibit the effective use of some of that money. Perhaps that is some explanation as to why there is a continued accumulation of this fund without it being applied.

Whether people have levies or taxes—obviously introduced with good intention—it is important that they are effective and that the funds are actually able to be applied. So, I am a little disappointed that the government has not used the opportunity in reviewing this act to look at that aspect as well and give some explanation as to why we have a situation where millions of dollars have accumulated in a fund which have not been applied. I think that is in direct contradiction to the promises that were made and the expectation of the public that it would be applied for environmental good.

The other aspect I raise is that it seems that local councils—like so many other instrumentalities of the government, such as SA Water—are facing this massive question of how much the federal government's carbon tax will add to their budget line. That is a matter with which the government seems to be struggling. It seems that it cannot even tell us what modelling it might have done on it; I certainly hope that it has done something because it seems as though everyone else has.

It did not fill me with confidence during question time today to hear from the Minister for Sport and the Premier. They did not seem to have a clue about what was actually happening in this regard. Hopefully they are doing something—even if they are not telling their ministers here—because everyone else is. It is a serious situation. Local governments, for example, through the LGA and recent announcements, have expressed their concern about what cost increases their councils will have to impose in relation to the carbon emissions respective to landfill sites. They are also worried about transport, energy and construction costs—not surprisingly, because they are in the business of providing services that rely heavily on these expenses and to which the carbon tax will apply.

In Queensland, as we know, an election is due on the 23^rd of this month. We are hoping, of course, for a great victory for the LNP—

An honourable member: It will be the 24^th.

Ms CHAPMAN: —the 24^th—and that Campbell Newman wins his seat and the election. What I wanted to mention about Queensland was that as we are here debating this bill, policy presentation has been made by the Liberal National Party to actually abolish their waste tax. They are a bit more open; they say that it is a levy up there, but generally they talk about it being a tax. It is important for it not only to be effective but also to not drive up other costs. Certainly, the Liberal National Party in Queensland has proposed an abolition of the tax, not because the merit of having one is not a good idea, but because as it has turned out it has driven up the cost for local councils and added to living costs for, in their case, all Queenslanders.

What they say is that there is a responsibility to drive policy and regulation reform in relation to waste management and they will not support attacks in the form of a business destroying, anti-recycling, cost-shifting, cost of living tax. They have actually gone through the full circle up there in Queensland, it seems to me: meritorious application of a good idea, raising the money and then realising that there are some very serious consequences to these costs. To now find that there has been an accumulation in the fund of which there has not been the studious application of these moneys, I think is very disappointing and needs some attention. Here, the Adelaide City Council have made public statements—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Has; singular.

Ms CHAPMAN: —has made a public statement (thank you for the correction, member for Croydon) for the increased expenses that they will have to meet in dealing with the carbon emissions from landfill sites. Remember that the Adelaide City Council was a very major landowner of rubbish tips in this state; and now, of course, we have moved on from it. It will not, of course, be exempt. It will have a major extra cost and it is looking at its budgets. It has already flagged publicly that it may need to increase the rates of Rundle Mall traders and parking costs to boost the income to overcome this—which is rather ironic as it seems to be strongly supportive of another bill before the house for Rundle Mall traders. It seems it is going to give with one hand and rip them off with the other.

Nevertheless, it is faced with the same as any other council in all these extra costs. We clearly need to look at it. The state government has already foreshadowed, and we are already experiencing, a major increase in costs of living and an increase in the solid waste levy, which I think is currently $35 a tonne, and to go to some $50 a tonne, as proposed, to recover the income stream that it wants to make from this tax.

It is also asking the people of South Australia to face a future of increased fuel, water, electricity and gas costs, which are already steeply increasing, and once we have desal plants and all sorts of other things that are going to increase these costs, together with carbon tax, we need to be able to be clear about what the government intends in that regard.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Croydon!

Ms CHAPMAN: The member for Croydon keeps interrupting. One does not want to actually respond to some of the inane comments that are coming from the other side, but sometimes they are quite useful—not from the member for Croydon.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Croydon!

Ms CHAPMAN: I think the general revenue of this fund is about $8 million or $9 million a year.

Mr Marshall: The revenue is $15 million a year.

Ms CHAPMAN: It is $15 million a year; clearly we need to have some answers from the government about when and where that will be applied. With those few comments, I indicate I will support the bill, but we want some answers.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (16:20): I rise today to speak to the Zero Waste SA (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2011 and acknowledge the work of the shadow minister for the environment, the member for Norwood (Steven Marshall), in taking on his first bill in the house. I congratulate him on the way he is doing that.

This bill was introduced in the lower house by minister Caica on 15 February 2012. The amendments seek to rectify some problems with the original bill because Zero Waste SA is currently not captured by the Public Finance and Audit Act 1987 and is therefore not answerable to Treasury for its financial decisions. Also, Zero Waste SA has no power for delegation of funds to carry out functions legislated in the act. Every time a decision is to be made, the department must defer to the board for confirmation, regardless of the size of the decision or the amount of money to be spent.

The first change, involving Zero Waste to be answerable under the Public Finance and Audit Act 1987, would provide more transparent information about its finances. As we have learnt with many other issues brought before this house, transparency is the key so that everyone knows what is going on. The second amendment allows the board to delegate functions and powers that already exist in the act, excluding any functions which are at the minister's discretion. This will allow the board more flexibility to conduct its business by delegating more menial administrative tasks to junior employees.

The reasoning behind the amendment from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources was that executives would no longer be bothered by trivial things like stationery orders—although when we look at 'cartridgegate' perhaps they should be involved in them. However, I suspect the prevalence of this practice has been greatly overstated, in regard to not being able to do the stationery orders, for the purpose of promoting the bill.

I note that there could be this delegation which may dilute the overall accountability of the minister—and, as we know, ministers need to be accountable for all the legislation—and create a web of transferring responsibilities. Over the years, we have seen more than $15 million received by Zero Waste SA, yet the expenditure authority has been approximately only $8 million to $8.5 million. So we see the fund, as it reaches the 2011-12 financial year budget, to have over $37 million in it, in 2012-13 over $44 million, and in 2013-14 close to $52 million, yet through every consequential year we see that only about $8.5 million can be spent.

Why is this money not being distributed through, probably, local government networks so that we can see the more efficient disposal of waste? We know that local governments are always burdened by responsibilities that are delegated to them and we certainly know that waste and the disposal of it has changed significantly over time.

I remember living in a country area where the original Coomandook dumpsite was right next to the Dukes Highway. For anyone travelling into Coomandook, less than two kilometres from the northern side of town, you will see a hill. If you know where it is, it is easy to spot. It is a hill on the side of the road where there is no scrub growing or any trees. That was the old dumpsite.

Mr Griffiths interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, as the member for Goyder indicates, they were everywhere. We have the Yumali dump past the end of Parkin Hall on the Sherlock-Yumali road where, not that many years ago, probably about 20 years ago, everyone used to turn up with their rubbish and just pour it all in the same hole and then there would be fires lit to burn up the flammable material.

Those dumps would last for years and years, but we have learnt that we need to improve our practices and we need to split our rubbish up. We need to recycle what we can and I think it is a good practice, but we also need to make sure that we have the right regulatory and legislative processes in place so that our authorities can efficiently take this rubbish off people's hands.

It is also about education. I know people who get frustrated that dumps are only open for a few hours a week. When people are in the middle of a big clean-up job on a property, they are frustrated that they cannot straightaway deliver that rubbish to the close facility. Then people have to make decisions, as I have, because the local dump is not open very often—I am just going from memory now; I have not used it that much. I think it is only open once or twice a month, so we take our rubbish down to the Coonalpyn transfer station on a Sunday when we are having a clean-out.

I suppose the point I am making is we need to have the right framework in place so that people do not start illegal dumping. The point I see is that all this money is being feathered away under the so-called zero waste management, yet we find that people are frustrated by the lack of options in getting rid of that waste. More of this money could be funnelled into councils, so that they could fund more opening times for local government dumps and have an efficient way to receive waste and recycled products.

I know it is a different scene when you go to a dump now. You have the metal in a spot, the timber products go in a spot and, basically, the straight rubbish goes into bins that are then picked up by the truck on its runs. All I am saying is there is a temptation for people, especially in rural areas, to dig their own holes and put rubbish in them. No-one wants that to happen, so I cannot see why we cannot have more money directed so that we have a proper zero waste policy, instead of people saying, 'Look, we have done such a good job with waste that there is not so much turning up.' Are they sure it is not just being got rid of in another way?

Mr Goldsworthy interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, as the member for Kavel indicates, it gets dumped on the side of the road and that is no good for anyone. That brings up another issue about the cost to people, especially urban dwellers, when they want to get rid of trailer loads of rubbish. If it gets too dear, that is exactly what they do. They dump it on the side of the road and it is absolutely the wrong thing to do. It would be better to have money that comes from the levy that is attributed to householders across the state distributed through the councils so they do not have to charge exorbitant fees so that we can get the waste in the right spot. With those few words, I support the bill.

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton—Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation) (16:29): I thank the speakers from the other side with respect to their contributions. I do not know whether it is the intention to—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: Briefly go to committee; well, I will not say too much now because I thought that, if I did, we might avoid that. In answer to a couple of comments that were made, during the member for Schubert's contribution he asked, 'Who is accountable?' and, of course, the Zero Waste Act, in accordance with the relevant act, the Public Finance and Audit Act 1987, applies that. But some advice that was received said that it needed to be clarified, and that is what is occurring through this bill.

Also, in relation to accountability, section 14 of the act requires Zero Waste SA to submit a business plan to the minister of the day—me on this occasion—setting out its major projects, goals and priorities on a rolling, triennial basis, including the budget for the next financial year, and all expenditure must be in accordance with the business plan or as authorised by me as the Minister for Sustainability and Conservation.

The member for Bragg talked about the introduction of a waste levy being about protection of the environment against landfill. In reality, the introduction of the levy was multi-faceted but, in particular, had a focus on an incentive not to have material go to landfill and, in turn, to then be able to focus on the recycling and reuse of that material. As was pointed out by the member for Hammond, when you go to a transfer station or a dump, you will see different material in different areas to make sure that that is more easily intercepted and then used. I would also remind the member for Hammond that we have spent significant money in country areas with respect to some grants that have gone into making things a little easier in the country.

I acknowledge that we face different challenges in regional South Australia than we do here in metropolitan Adelaide, and that has been a particular focus of Zero Waste, and their very expert board, in having a look at how assistance can be provided to regional areas to make sure that we are able not only to more easily have that material intercepted but also to ensure that there is an ease in disposing of that material from both an industry and a household perspective.

I acknowledge the challenges in regional South Australia, given the length and breadth of this fine state with respect to the area that it covers. Last year we introduced the illegal dumping unit and that is about making sure that we have a unit that focuses on illegal dumping throughout South Australia—particularly the high end of town who are trying to avoid paying the costs involved with respect to waste to landfill—but also through an educative process to make sure that, when working with councils, people understand their individual responsibility as householders to dispose of their material and rubbish in such a way that lends itself not only to interception but also to the benefits that accrue with the recycling and reuse of that material.

The member for Bragg made a comment also about the policy of the Liberal National Party in Queensland, should it be elected, to remove the waste levy. I think that is a backward step. I think that that is a backward step in Queensland because we have shown across Australia, particularly here in South Australia, that the waste to resources levy is, indeed, that incentive to make sure that less material than otherwise would be the case, finds its way into landfill and is then recycled and reused.

I could talk for a while, but I expect that I will get some questions on aspects that were raised by opposition members in regard to the levy, bearing in mind that that is not a matter that is under consideration within this bill. We are dealing with two amendments to the bill that clarify what the board previously undertook with respect to its operations and, secondly, the ability to be able to delegate, because it is a very unwieldy and less efficient process at this point in time than it should be. I will conclude my remarks there, and thank the opposition for its contribution, and I look forward to the quick passage of this bill through the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 and 2 passed.

Clause 3.

Mr MARSHALL: My question is regarding clause 3 of the bill, the insertion of new section 7A. My question to the minister is: has the Zero Waste SA board previously received a Treasurer's Instruction that it has not been able to comply with? Is that the driver for this amendment?

The Hon. P. CAICA: I thank the honourable member for his question. No, it has never been the case that Zero Waste has not complied with either the Treasurer's Instructions or other aspects of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1987, but that is because of the work they undertake, more so than it being clear under their act that they were to do that. The advice we received said that the act could be tightened by doing this, notwithstanding the fact that they always complied with both those aspects.

Mr MARSHALL: Just for clarity, the board has always acted in accordance with the Treasurer's Instructions even though it was not specifically required to by legislation?

The Hon. P. CAICA: They were not required to, had they ever challenged it, but they acted in such a way that it was—and in fact it was always, if you like—implied that all those provisions applied, as opposed to now making sure that they do, but there has never been any reason at all to think that they did not act accordingly. They always did on the basis that they believed that those provisions applied at any rate. The advice Zero Waste subsequently received was that that needed to be clarified because under the current act it was more silent than anything else on those particular matters.

Mr MARSHALL: Is it the Treasurer's Instruction that determines what the expenditure amount is that Zero Waste can spend up to each year?

The Hon. P. CAICA: That is not contained within the Treasurer's Instruction and, of course, it is government policy. I think it was mentioned previously by the member for Bragg that section 17 of the act establishes a Waste to Resources Fund consisting of 50 per cent, or a percentage as may be prescribed, of an amount to be paid by waste depot licence holders by way of a levy under section 113. But, no, there were no Treasurer's Instructions in that regard. It is a policy decision of government as to what quantity of money that goes in will in turn be utilised on certain projects, knowing full well that it assists in the funding of both Zero Waste and part of the EPA.

Mr MARSHALL: Given that there is a massive accumulation in the Waste to Resources Fund of the order of around $7 million or $8 million per year at the moment, should we be concerned, or what protection do we have that the Zero Waste SA board might receive a Treasurer's Instruction to utilise the Waste to Resources Fund for something other than what was originally intended by this act?

The Hon. P. CAICA: With respect to what this amendment is trying to do, it refers to Treasurer's Instructions as they relate to the way whereby you might delegate or account, so there are Treasurer's Instructions. That is different from the implications of what you are saying about an instruction that says how this fund might be used and, in reality, we know, as I mentioned earlier, that it is collected for a specific purpose. That purpose is really as an incentive against the quantity of material that finds its way to landfill but, in essence, the Treasurer, through his instruction processes, has nothing to do with that particular matter as expressed in your terms.

Mr MARSHALL: My question really relates to this accumulation of the Waste to Resources Fund. In fact, within two years, I think, that fund will sit at $53 million. The current expenditure level is predicted to be $8.6 million per year, so you can see that there is quite a substantial difference between what is being accumulated annually (and cumulatively) against what is being expended. My question is: what protection do we have that, by passing this amendment, there will not be an instruction from the Treasurer to use this accumulating Waste to Resources Fund for purposes other than what is contained within the objects of this act?

The Hon. P. CAICA: I thank the honourable member for his question, but I would remind him that this money that is collected can only be expended for the purposes for which it has been collected, so what he is suggesting or speculating or hypothesising—that the Treasurer may in the future issue an instruction—could only occur if indeed changes were made to the particular act about that expenditure.

The issue that has been raised here today is not one that is relevant to this particular bill, although I take on board the comments made by the opposition spokesperson and, of course, I have raised that issue before, and as a consequence of that, instigated a review of the Waste to Resources levy. The results of that have not yet come to me, but I can tell you that that review included, amongst other things, general discussion and consultation with industry but also significantly the Local Government Association.

I expect it to answer some of the matters that have been raised by the honourable member in his contribution today, bearing in mind that the comments that are being made are not relevant to the bill before us today, because this is a tidying up of the legislation to ensure that clarity is given to that which we always thought was the case anyway in regard to the way in which Zero Waste operates.

Mr MARSHALL: I do not mean to be pedantic, but the amendment refers specifically to the application of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1987 and also Treasurer's Instructions 'including in connection with the management, investment and application of the Waste to Resources Fund', so I think it is a reasonable question on this actual clause.

I just put on record the opposition's concern that this amendment could in fact lead to a situation where the Zero Waste SA board would receive a Treasurer's Instruction to utilise or manage or invest the Waste to Resources Fund in a way which we in opposition believe would be contrary to the objects of the act.

However, I will take the minister's response, which he has put on record several times, that that will not be the case and that all the expenditure of that money in that fund will be precisely in accordance with the existing act and the existing objects of that act, which is to move us towards zero waste here in South Australia.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Quite simply, the member for Norwood is wrong. He is conflating, if you like, Treasurer's Instructions into something that is really quite imaginative as opposed to being fact. Of course, with respect to how money is expended, money can only be expended for the purposes for which that money has been collected, but also importantly Zero Waste has a business plan.

Section 14 of the act requires Zero Waste to submit a business plan to me setting out its major projects, goals and priorities. It includes the budget for the next year. Also, any expenditure from the fund must be in accordance with the business plan or, for the purpose of the act, as authorised by the minister, and be in accordance with South Australia's waste strategy. Section 18(1) of the act requires Zero Waste to develop a state waste strategy in accordance with section 5(1)(c) of the act. The strategy must be adopted, implemented and reviewed on a five-yearly basis. So, there are already these provisions in there. Without being disrespectful, the member for Norwood is conflating what are Treasurer's Instructions as they currently operate into something that the Treasurer will not instruct upon.

Clause passed.

Remaining clause (4) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton—Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation) (16:46): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.