Single-use and Other Plastic Products (Waste Avoidance) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 30 April 2020.)

Dr CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:33): I indicate that I am the lead speaker on this side of the chamber, and I cannot tell you how delighted I am to have two bills in a row. In the case of this bill, as with the other one—where I indicated broad support but for my very serious concerns about the composition of the board—I am very pleased to support this piece of legislation. I indicate that we will be seeking to introduce a couple of amendments that are really about ensuring that there is adequate reporting and review, but we support the general tenor and contents of the piece of legislation.

I would say that plastics are probably the greatest symbol of the enormity, without any serious intention, of our harm collectively as human beings to this planet. The invention of plastic, the creation of the capacity to make plastic, was in many ways exciting and revolutionary and liberating for us as a species. It was the capacity to make things that were useful to us in vast quantities at relatively low price, that could be thrown away if not needed, that were light and flexible and could almost infinitely be shaped into the kinds of products we find to be entertaining, delightful or useful.

It has also been extraordinarily useful as a way of keeping things clean. The hygienic value of wrapping things in plastic became a virtual obsession of Western society at least. Of course, it also allowed us to carry things around in plastic bags which were light, easy, cheap and easy to throw away when you had finished with them but which were able to hold products. You could go to the shops, and if you had not thought about how much you were going to buy that was okay: there was this free bit of plastic you got that you could throw the gear into, take home and then get rid of.

You can see how seductive plastic has been in the creation of large objects right down to very fine, flimsy film—and yet what a disaster, what a catastrophe for the planet, not only because of the use of oil to make plastics, which are the ultimate form of carbon and therefore the ultimate expression of our unwitting lurch into this terribly destructive path of climate change we are on. We in Australia need no lecture from any part of the world about the catastrophe that climate change represents, having lived through the last summer, having seen people die, having lost huge tracts of both natural land and cultivated land and having seen the catastrophe of air quality in our major cities.

The horror of last summer can be no greater testament, if testament were required, to the true scope, scale and extent of the catastrophe of climate change we are in the middle of—and plastic has its role in that. But not only that, plastic is poison for our planet and that very virtue we saw in it—how lightweight it is, how easy it is to get rid of, how cheap it is and therefore how little lasting value it has—has meant that it has gone not only into our waste streams and our landfills but also into our litter streams and thereby found its way through our watercourses and out into the ocean.

I have spoken about this film in this chamber before and it will probably not be the last time I will: the documentary Blue that turned me into a sobbing mess, I have to say, rather embarrassingly in front of a whole lot of constituents at the Odeon cinema in Semaphore. It displayed the horror of the experience of humanity for the creatures that live in the sea and most particularly but not exclusively because of our love of plastic and its disposability and the way it has made its way into the ocean. The fact that there are little chicks on Lord Howe Island that instead of having food put into their gullets by their parents have bits of plastic put in that their parents think—

Mr Boyer: It's far less strange than the speech you just gave, I can tell you that, believe me. It was the oddest contribution I have seen in a long time.

Dr CLOSE: I am sure you are not in any way reflecting that anybody in this chamber thinks my speech is strange, member for Wright.

That the parents of these chicks are taking bits of plastic out of the ocean thinking that they are food and forcing them into the gullet of their babies that then have pen nibs and bread ties instead of food, that that is the way we have polluted this planet with plastic, that micro plastic that has broken down and yet has not gone away is in the cells of nearly every animal species including us, that plastic bags find their way into marine mammals, into the tortoises, the turtles, the seals, the dolphins, the whales, and strangle inside if not outside these animals—that is what we have done through our love affair with plastic. It is well and truly time that we deal with this.

That is why I am so pleased to support this piece of legislation, because it is the beginning of dealing with the highly disposable bits of plastic that we do not need to continue to use other than in exceptional circumstances, and where we do we must recycle. We must not allow it to go into either the waste or the litter streams. I will have many questions about this bill, because this is an important piece of legislation and the decisions that we make will be looked at by other jurisdictions in Australia and elsewhere to see whether we have made the right judgements and to watch how that plays out.

The reason I have proposed amendments that are about review and reporting is that it is important that we not go, 'Here we go, plastics sorted. We've done a bit of legislation. Let's all move on.' We are at the very beginning of dealing with the extent of pollution that plastics is causing and we need to know whether what we are doing is working, whether it has gone far enough and whether it has had unintended consequences. That is why that reporting is so very, very important.

I signal that I will be asking questions that relate to the oxo-degradable so-called plastics. They are plastic, but they are not what we would ordinarily think of as degradable. A lot of consumers will go looking for the right thing in the supermarket, they will see 'degradable' and they will grab it, but it is not compostable. In fact, by 'degradable' it simply means that it degenerates into those microplastics that make their way into the oceans and in fact into all of our food chains.

I will be asking questions about the very useful and important decision that is made in this piece of legislation to eliminate oxo-degradable plastics, and whether that is all of the kinds of plastic that represent that risk of misusing or misunderstanding the extent to which they are degradable and then getting them into the wrong chain where they cause more harm than good.

I will be asking questions about enforcement. We do have an extraordinary community in South Australia. We have demonstrated that most recently in our response to the COVID crisis. We also demonstrated it in the fact that South Australia has, ridiculously in some ways, led Australia for so long on the container deposit legislation and also on the elimination of single-use lightweight plastic bags. However, we should not be exceptional. We are wonderful and it is very good to be proud of ourselves, but really it is odd that the rest of Australia has taken so long to follow.

Even given the tremendous effort that has been made, I do not think that we can assume that the South Australian public will automatically and always do the right thing, and a bit of enforcement is necessary, as is a bit of publicity. So I will ask questions about the extent to which the government will ensure that those things happen appropriately.

Of course, there is also the very thorny question of the provision of plastic straws for people who genuinely need plastic straws in order to be able to have drinks out in public. That is not solved in this legislation. It is going to be solved through a regulation, but I will be asking questions. I imagine that my colleague the member for Hurtle Vale, who is the shadow for disability amongst other things, will also be very interested in how that is managed.

I will be asking questions about local manufacturers. While we support this legislation, we do want to understand the impact on local manufacturers. Although the legislation gives the provision for continued sale in jurisdictions where that is allowed, the question is about the short-term impact where that manufacturer might be highly dependent on the South Australian market. As I indicated, there is then that question of accountability. Having created this piece of legislation, how are we as a parliament and as a state to know that it is working?

I commend the government for bringing in this piece of legislation. I indicate our support and I look forward to the committee stage simply to ask a number of questions and to introduce what I think ought to be a well-accepted and easily agreed to amendment or two about reporting.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart—Minister for Energy and Mining) (16:44): It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Stuart and our government as well, of course, in support of this bill. It is also a pleasure to follow the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on this topic, a topic I know she is deeply and genuinely connected to. I think that she just made a very eloquent contribution to this debate. I also appreciate the fact that she indicated the opposition's support for this bill. I look forward to seeing what amendments she and her opposition colleagues want to put forward, but it is terrific to have on the record that the bill as it stands has their support.

This is a very important topic. I am not a purist. I am not a person who thinks that every single little piece of plastic has to go straightaway. I saw the same movie that the deputy leader was talking about and, while I did not cry, I felt similarly as she did, although perhaps not as deeply. I remember being revolted by some of the things that I saw. I particularly remember the part that she was talking about with the parent birds feeding the chicks what they thought were pieces of food. They actually turned out to be hard plastic that was going to sit in their stomachs. I remember seeing the chicks' stomachs being pumped out to (1) try to save them and (2) do some important research and identify exactly the harm that had been done.

That said, we are not going to get rid of all plastic across the globe and we are not going to get rid of all plastic across South Australia anytime soon. I am not a purist, in that regard, but I am a pretty nuts and bolts, down-to-earth sort of person. We need to do the best we can today. Tomorrow, we can do better. The day after that, we can do better, and the day after that we can do better. In the same vein as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, we cannot think that we are taking this step and then say, 'Good. Terrific. We got this legislation through parliament. Both major parties agreed, so that's terrific. We can move on to something else.'

This piece of legislation is, in my opinion, an outstanding start, and I pay full credit to the Minister for Environment and Water for bringing this to our party room and for bringing this to our parliament. It is an outstanding start. To outlaw the use of certain single-use plastics is a fantastic start. I also like the nuts and bolts pragmatic approach to say that the structure through the regulations will allow us over time to outlaw more and more single-use plastics as it becomes practical and as it is appropriate. Ideally, it would be as quickly as possible, but in my mind the ideal includes a strong dose of pragmatism about what the impacts of that would be.

I think that the minister has the mix just right. The proof of the pudding will be in five, 10 or 15 years when we know, hopefully, that subsequent parliaments, subsequent governments, subsequent members of parliament, premiers, leaders and all the different roles that we fill have increased the list in the regulations with things that are to be outlawed over time.

I would like to compare this issue with one that I am dealing with in my area of responsibility at the moment—in fact, the government as a whole has a strong interest in this—and that is the smelter at Port Pirie. This is a topic that all of us would be aware of. I hope that most South Australians are aware of this. There are people who say, 'Shut it down. It emits lead. Get rid of it.' I do not believe that is the case. I do not believe that is the appropriate approach. There are other people who say, 'It doesn't matter; it's been here for a hundred years. It's okay; it supports the community and we've all got jobs. Yes, it might be a bit of lead, but we manage, so just leave it alone. Don't take any risks with it.' I do not believe that is the right approach either.

In my mind, the right approach is to say, 'We must have this business, we must have this operation, we must have this employer in Port Pirie for decades to come, and we must have the smelter emit less lead over time as well—again, as quickly as possible, but with a big dose of pragmatism about it. Don't inappropriately damage the industry, the community and the world as we know it: guide it, steer it, push it or drag it. Do what you need to do in the right direction in an appropriate way.'

In the same vein, we are working very hard with Nyrstar, the EPA, the Department for Energy and Mining, the Department for Environment and Water and others to say, 'We know that we need this industry. We know that we value this company and its operations, but we are determined that it will emit less lead over time so that it will do less harm over time, and we want to move that way as quickly as is practical.'

We take the same approach with plastics. There are some single-use plastics—this is a bit of a judgement call, perhaps—without which we would struggle today, but there are some that we will not struggle without. The most immediate part of this transition has to be not so much about removing the use of plastic but moving from single-use plastic to multiple-use plastic or permanent-use plastic, or permanent-use other materials. The most common example that is often talked about is moving away from disposable plastic straws and moving towards paper straws, permanent-use plastics or stainless steel straws—people have their range of preferences here. In different people's minds there are pros and cons to all of those three examples, but all of them are preferable to single-use plastic.

The Minister for Environment and Water has found a way to bring a very sensible approach to parliament so that we can make the moves that we need to make and have the capacity to make them today but leave the door open to continue down that sensible path. We do not have to come back to parliament with an amendment bill when, hypothetically, we want to move from outlawing single-use plastics used for spoons, knives and forks to down the track outlawing another single-use plastic. It can be done by the government of the day. It can be done by a Liberal government or it can be done by a Labor government. It can be done in a sensible way because the Minister for Environment and Water and the Marshall government have brought this here for us.

It also begs the debate about why just plastic. Well, maybe because there is a lot of single-use plastic that could be removed. Every Clean Up Australia Day, I and no doubt many other people in this chamber are just amazed by what you find when you go out and clean up the sides of roads, waterways, mangrove swamps, a bit of the bush, perhaps parklands in a metropolitan context or, for other members, coastlines. The feature of the day for me is not so much the fact that it is usually a fairly hot day in March, at least in Wilmington where I live, and it is an effort and everybody comes together and it is productive and people are pleased to do it. The feature of the day for me is what you actually find. It astounds me what you find, including things that you would expect to be biodegradable.

The deputy leader mentioned the fact that what we would consider to be biodegradable plastic actually just becomes smaller bits of plastic, and in some cases invisible bits of plastic—that is my non-scientific description—but the plastic is still there. I am regularly amazed by cardboard and a range of other things that you would think would have deteriorated over six to 12 months, or would have biodegraded, in the way that we commonly think of it.

I am amazed by the number of tyres that you find in places that they did not get to by falling off a vehicle that was driving by. These tyres have actually been heaved down into these gullies. I am not suggesting that we remove single-use rubber or we outlaw tyres or anything at this stage. Maybe in 100 years we will get to something like that—50 years would be better—but I am amazed by the litter that I come across.

South Australians in the vast majority are very good about not littering, but there is a small segment of the community that still does it, whether that be their plastic straw from a fast-food outlet or whether that be their car or truck tyre which they deliberately roll into a gully and leave because they just could not be bothered disposing of it in an appropriate way. Car batteries are another item used in an offensive way by people.

There is a range of things at play here. There is plastic, there is pollution, there is deliberate littering, but what the Minister for Environment and Water has done is bring together a very practical approach that allows us to develop over time. But let's not just assume that that is going to happen. Let's not just think that it has been set for us and subsequent governments over time, whether it be a year's time for the Marshall government or 10 years' time for the Marshall government or, sometime after that, a Labor government. Let's not just assume that as time goes on it will automatically take care of itself.

I say to every member here: let's make sure that on a very regular basis we are assessing the next step we can take in regard to removing single-use plastics or potentially even another single-use pollutant. Let's do it sensibly. Let's not do it before time. Let's not do it in a way that has other consequences that would also cause our community great difficulty, but let's make sure that we are regularly assessing this so that we can be proud of what our parliament is doing.

I am assuming that this will get through both houses of parliament in a fairly swift fashion in the way that the lead speaker for the opposition and certainly the minister in our government intend in this chamber. Let's get this through. Let's get it through properly. Let's consider sensible amendments, and let's then use this legislation for decades to come to make South Australia the best place that it can possibly be.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON (Ramsay) (16:57): I stand today to support the amended bill before us. This bill continues South Australia's leadership in recycling and resource recovery for more than 40 years. We ask ourselves: why is this bill necessary? I guess the first thing to think about is: what is the damage that we are trying to fix? We know that eight million tonnes of plastic end up in the ocean each year, and that is what we are trying to prevent through the leadership in South Australia. Over many decades we have taken leadership nationally and internationally on this issue.

I would like to note the process to get to this point today. There was quite a detailed discussion paper, 'Turning the tide on single-use plastic products: approach and next steps'. If I remember correctly, YourSAy was involved in this. That was something that was developed over quite a period of time under the previous government, enabling a portal for information about topics that the government of the day wanted to debate and discuss, and a forum for people to engage with government.

There was quite a substantial working task force on this, with industry, retail and disability groups showing broad support for the bill. However, as with any changes, it was important to raise issues of alternatives, exemptions, enforcements and impacts for costs on businesses and costs on different facilities.

It is noted that Green Industries SA received 3,564 submissions, comments and survey responses from members of the general public, and 68 submissions were received from industry stakeholders. I have to say that it is rare to have quite that many contacts from people, so this is obviously an issue people are interested in and willing to put their name to a paper or comment on to guide the decision-making.

As we know, on commencement of this legislation single-use plastic drinking straws, cutlery and drink stirrers will be prohibited from sale, supply and distribution, with the intention that 12 months forward from that polystyrene cups, bowls, plates and clamshell containers and oxo-degradable plastic products will also be prohibited. This bill today is the start of our saying this is a direction we want to go in in South Australia.

As advised, there is a six-month transition period for businesses to move to alternate products. The opposition has proposed some very moderate amendments, and I stand before you today to support those amendments to this bill. The amendments include two modes of review and the ability to report to the parliament on the proposed legislation. I think it is only just that we review this bill after three years, similar to what we did after plastic bag legislation came in. Many of us see only the opportunity to reduce landfill and plastics into the ocean, but are there unintended consequences for our state in introducing this and prohibiting single-use plastics? It is important for us to review this.

The second is a requirement upon the minister to report to the parliament annually on the enforcement of these bans, including the number of expiation notices and compliance checks by authorised officers. It is important that we as a parliament understand how this is working. We do not want to hear that it is just in name only and that actually exemptions are being called left, right and centre. This gives the parliament oversight of how this is working.

What I really wanted to talk about today is the record of South Australia as a leader and an innovator in this space. We are a leader in waste management, but it is noted that over decades of this investment it has only happened because of government legislation, building a supportive culture on positive waste management, education and infrastructure. It does not just happen on legislation alone, and this is really important every time we introduce new ways and prohibit old ways of doing things here.

I would like to spend some time to reflect on the former Labor government's leadership in this area. In 1977, the Dunstan government commenced the container deposit scheme and this was based on the Beverage Container Act 1975. At that time, the motivation was about littering. We were very concerned about the litter that was forming in our parks, on our beaches and on our roads, and the leadership of the Dunstan government of that time made people personally responsible for that litter.

You may recall the litter signs: here is the expiation (as we call it) or the fine for littering in this space at this time. It was only when I travelled overseas as a young woman that I realised how important government leadership was on that because I saw other places that did not have control of their littering. It is something we take for granted here quite a lot. Initially, that came in as the container deposit levy of 5¢, and this was reviewed in 2008 to change it to 10¢.

For 35 years, South Australia was the only state with container deposit legislation. We were the stand-out, and I am very proud that we did this. In fact, I remember that in primary school it was a fundraiser to go around with a trailer (some of you might remember this) to collect everyone's beer bottles and get the money back for the school. It was before we had our recycling bins, and people would collect them and get the money back as a fundraiser.

In 2017-18, more than $60 million was refunded in South Australia using this scheme. It reached its height in 2011, when the return rate for recyclables was 81 per cent. That is a huge amount. We saw it drop off a little bit, and in 2017 it dropped to 77 per cent. What this tells us is that, even though something has been established for a long time, it is important that we educate people, that we remind people how important it is to participate and to recycle.

In 2009, the Rann government introduced the plastic bag ban. We were the first state in the nation to place a ban on lightweight check-out style bags. It gave us some options: we could purchase a heavier bag for 15¢, but South Australians were encouraged to bring their own bag. I recommend a 'Zoe Bettison, member for Ramsay' bag if you live in Salisbury or Paralowie. I am often out in my local shopping centre at Parabanks and I spy one of my bags because they are used over and over again. I know I am not the only member in this house who has their bags, but it goes hand in hand with the message that we want to be using bags that can be used over and over again.

We saw that this introduction in 2009 resulted in a reduction in the quantity of plastic in the waste stream. Keep Australia Beautiful estimated that there was a 45 per cent decrease in plastic bags in the waste stream between 2009 and 2012. We know that government leadership, decisions and legislation have an impact on this, but what is most important is a change in behaviour.

I know that I have a series of bags in the boot of my car, and when I head off to my local Saints Road Foodland or the Woolworths I pull out those bags and use them again. But we did not always do that and we did not do it overnight, so the important thing is to develop and support cultural change. There was a five-year period of review, and in 2011 a plastic bag ban empirical study was undertaken by the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute for Marketing Science at University of South Australia. It demonstrated that, since the ban took effect, nine out of 10 shoppers took re-usable bags to do their shopping and that compared with only six out of 10 prior to the ban.

In South Australia, other areas of introduction to support recycling and resource management were the Zero Waste SA Act 2004 and of course many waste management strategies that are managed by Green Industries in South Australia. What are the outcomes of some of this leadership? A litter stream report in 2018 showed us that CDL containers and plastic bags took up only 2.8 per cent of litter items in South Australia.

We were in the leadership compared with all other states and territories, and South Australia has the highest diversion rate of waste recycling, with 83.6 per cent of waste generated diverted from landfill. There are also added benefits of the development of recycling and the development of green industries through employment in this area, and of course we can also capture the market value of the recovered resources.

In getting my background information for this, I was able to have a conversation through my office with the local CE of BioPaks, Gary Smith, who is the local distributor based at Cavan. We use these BioPaks in our very own cafeteria, the Blue Room—a wood knife, fork and napkin set. Known as bioplastic items, they are made from organic biomass sources, such as vegetable oils, cellulose, starches, carbohydrates, acids and alcohols.

The production of these products produces less CO₂ than pure plastic products, and their overall environmental impact is typically lower than that of conventional plastics. Most importantly, these BioPaks can break down within 180 days and are compostable. It is important that when we make these changes we feel that South Australians are supporting us.

In discussions with Gary Smith, he quoted that prior to COVID-19 about 50 per cent of businesses in the Adelaide CBD had transitioned to these BioPaks. So people were already saying before we introduced legislation that they wanted to see a change. Gary Smith said that what has been very interesting is that since the events of COVID-19 the suburban reach for a transitioning to BioPaks and compostable resources was nearly 70 per cent. So we have actually seen during this very difficult and very challenging time that people are still wanting to know that what they are doing is best for the environment.

Consumers and businesses have already spoken before the state government actually moved on this legislation. I do think there is an important role for legislation, but it cannot be in the absence of education and investment in infrastructure. Although I rise today to support this bill, I would say to the minister that we must make sure that we go out there with information, particularly over this long transition period, to make sure that we are reaching out—whether it be to the retailers, the distributors or the manufacturers of these products—to ensure they are clear about what they can and cannot do. I support the bill in an amended form.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON (Adelaide—Minister for Child Protection) (17:11): I rise today to speak in support of the Single-use and Other Plastic Products (Waste Avoidance) Bill 2020. I commend the Minister for the Environment and Water for bringing forward this bill, which is incredibly popular in the Adelaide electorate. We have a lot of people who are very environmentally minded and see this as a very positive step forward. We have had very good engagement in my electorate sending out a survey, and we had a very high participation rate of filling in that survey and sending it back to our office.

Plastic production around the globe has increased from 15 million tonnes in 1964 to 311 million tonnes in 2014. I read that this is almost the same weight as the entire human population and will continue to grow at alarming rates. Plastic production is expected to double over the next 20 years. Most plastics are produced from fossil fuels, which use about 6 per cent of global oil consumption. Plastic rubbish ends up in our stormwater drains and out at sea, and at least eight million tonnes of plastics end up in our oceans each year. If we continue using our plastics in this way, by 2050 there will be more plastics than fish in the ocean.

Many of my constituents are very concerned about the effects that humans are having on the environment and are very keen to do their part to reduce waste. The Single-use and Other Plastic Products (Waste Avoidance) Bill puts into practice what so many of us already support—a banning of the sale, supply or distribution of single-use plastic straws, cutlery and drink stirrers. In 12 months, this will be extended to the distribution of polystyrene cups, bowls, plates, clamshell containers and oxo-degradable plastic products.

The Marshall Liberal government released the discussion paper 'Turning the tide on single-use plastics: approach and next steps' on 8 July 2019. The plan outlined how South Australia would ban certain products, including plastic straws, cutlery and stirrers and then takeaway polystyrene containers and cups.

Following wide community and stakeholder support, this legislation now puts in practice the plan to ban a range of other plastic products over a period of time. Businesses have responded to their customers' calls for the ban and have embraced the banning of single-use plastics wherever possible; in fact, many have turned to the use of cardboard, paper and bamboo products instead of plastic.

In my electorate, many of the coffee shops were already giving discounts encouraging the use of keep cups prior to COVID, and others, such as Cibo, had recycling bins, with others using compostable cups. Certainly, the Prospect council at a lot of its community events has been very proactive in supporting and encouraging that all the products that serve food and coffee and everything have to be compostable, so they are really leading the way. The Adelaide city council is also doing a fantastic job, so I am very lucky to have very proactive councils in my electorate.

Although the COVID-19 health crisis has slowed down the implementation of single-use plastics from a six-month transition period to a later proposed date, I am confident that the community will overcome the recent challenges and continue transitioning away from plastics as a positive environmental measure. South Australia is leading the nation in waste management and recycling, initially with our container deposit legislation, which was introduced in 1977, and then in 1995, with the introduction of the 10¢ refund on cans. This policy, which is as successful today as it was when it was introduced in 1995, ensures that statewide recycling can capture over 90 per cent of items for recycling compared with other states, which recycle only 30 per cent.

We have also led the way with 87 per cent of material recovered through diversion being recycled in our state. There are considerable economic and environmental opportunities to develop methods to re-use, recirculate and reproduce plastics to prevent these items becoming garbage and entering landfill. This is sensible legislation that will be embraced and welcomed by the community. It includes commonsense provisions such as allowing those with a disability or medical needs to be able to use single-use plastic straws. There are some other items, such as fruit boxes and yoghurts with spoons in their packaging, that will also still be allowed. There is significant community and industry support and my own electorate, as I have mentioned, is very supportive of these government measures.

As I mentioned earlier, we had an electorate survey that was sent out in November 2019 during National Recycling Week. It was printed on 100 per cent recycled botany brown paper using soy-based ink, so we are trying to do our bit as well. This electorate-wide survey received one of the highest responses of any of my surveys over the last 10 years. There was 91 per cent agreement on the banning of single-use plastics, 88 per cent agreement on the immediate banning of plastic-lined coffee cups, 90 per cent agreement on plastic plates and cutlery being banned, 95 per cent agreement on plastic stirrers, 87 per cent agreement on thick plastic bags, 94 per cent agreement on the banning of plastic straws, and 90 per cent would like to see the phase-out over 12 months, expanded to include the polystyrene cups and food containers and non-compostable bags.

There are many new inventions and new ways to replace plastics. I believe the Prospect and Walkerville councils have held workshops on making your own beeswax wraps. Instead of using Glad Wrap you can use beeswax covers that you can put over your jars, and I have a set of them. Of course, everyone is getting into re-using glass jars and sealed containers, and, if you grew up in the seventies, you probably have Tupperware containers in your cupboards that you could still use. But we need to do our part. There have been lots of workshops in all of my council areas on recycling, correct recycling, re-using what we can and also trying to buy less.

There is the nude food movement, of course. I would love to see somebody open a supermarket with no wrapping in my electorate. I think it would go very well, if anyone is out there listening. I note that one of the former speakers mentioned Clean Up Australia Day. For Clean Up Australia Day this year, I cleaned up a section in the Adelaide Parklands and would you believe that the things I picked up the most were those covers that are put around shrubs in order to protect them. Those shrubs were now giant trees, definitely not in need of protection, but they were still stuck at the bottom, some of them in varying degraded ways that spread that green plastic all over the Parklands. We might need to really think about a better tree cover that breaks down without leaving mess everywhere, as occurs with the plastic-coated tree protectors. I welcome this initiative and I commend the bill to the house.

Ms COOK (Hurtle Vale) (17:20): I am supporting this bill, which is eminently sensible and supports the conversations that we as parents constantly have with our children about sustainability, our environment and the need to do things that protect our community in the future from rubbish and all these awful things. Non-compostable and biodegradable wastes do build up, but also our children are absolutely attuned to the dangers of micro and small pieces of plastic and the damage that straws can do.

From an environmental point of view, it is fantastic to see South Australia again leading the way, as we know we have done over the years. Of course, those opposite are now picking up the baton and running with this, following the Labor government and so many wonderful initiatives that were groundbreaking for South Australia but also firsts in Australia and no doubt the world. I have family in Queensland (I call them my crazy Queensland family) and I have visited there so many times and shaken my head at the nonsense and the rubbish build-up that they have had over the years. They were agitated about using re-usable shopping bags and a whole range of other things that have been put into place, but then three days after the rubbish was taken they were unable to find somewhere to put their rubbish at home because their bin was already full of so much stuff.

I think it is a great thing that we are doing here in South Australia working together. I also support the shadow minister, the member for Port Adelaide, in terms of some of the very sensible suggestions that she has made. It is a no-brainer to establish the need for a review for this piece of legislation. I see no reason for us not to support that and for a report to be brought back to the parliament so that we can have some checks and balances in place as to how this is rolling out. I am sure that over the ensuing years we will find other things that we can put into place. I hope that the minister, given the opportunity to go away and consider these amendments, will support them also, with the backing of the party room of the government.

In my capacity as spokesperson or shadow minister for human services, I want to raise a couple of specific points rather than talk for a long time on the pros and cons. I have spoken to hundreds of people in the disability community, and we put out consultation about this quite some months ago now, early last year even, regarding the plastic straws being an issue for people with disability. I am not going to explain all the different circumstances where one might need to use a straw, but let me say that people with disability deserve a voice in this, they also deserve not to be questioned about this and they definitely deserve not to be questioned about the legitimacy of their disability.

What we need to do is to put in some strategies so that people with a disability have an alternative so that they are not challenged when using the alternative and that they are able to access the alternative product. Sometimes, sadly, it seems that the alternative may well be plastic straws, but we will just have to see how this all rolls out in the wash. I understand this is not going to be enshrined in the legislation but more regulated down the track, so we will be keeping a really close eye on those regulations and of course asking some questions in committee.

I will make a few small points, namely, that without a straw many people with a disability cannot drink. Without a straw, it is impossible for them to drink because they are unable to lift a cup by themselves, and nobody should have to seek the assistance of somebody else to bring a cup up to their mouth if that is not what they want to do. There are many alternatives to the plastic straw that have been offered up. I would say to you that the paper straw becomes a slurry in a hot drink. A metal straw becomes too hot or too cold with fluid going through it. I am told that bamboo straws can break down. They are also not appropriate for people to be able to carry around and wash and clean.

There are glass straws. I met with a very close friend Anne Briscoe, who lives with multiple sclerosis, and she has a set of very nice glass straws, but those straws do not give you a second chance on a tiled floor. I think that they are not going to be helpful. Apart from being quite nice to drink with and aesthetically pleasing, they are not going to be suitable for everybody.

For people living with a disability, compromised immune systems can be an issue and these people simply cannot use re-usable straws. I am pleased to see there will be provisions made through the exemptions for people living with disabilities to purchase straws. There will need to be some cafes, pubs and other environs that will need to be able to supply said straws.

Could everybody please make sure they understand that it should not be contingent on a person with a disability to have to explain themselves over and over again? I am sure all of you have heard people being challenged about their disability in relation to getting other permits, identification for taxi vouchers, etc. and the NDIS. They should not have to do that. I will be carefully questioning the minister during the committee stage to make sure there is not an unnecessary burden of proof.

Apart from that, I am really pleased to support the bill and to ask questions during the committee stage, and I support the eminently sensible amendments offered by our shadow minister for environment, the member for Port Adelaide. I commend the bill.

Mr DULUK (Waite) (17:26): I also rise today to speak on the Single-use and Other Plastic Products (Waste Avoidance) Bill 2020. As so many in the chamber have already expressed in their contributions, I think that there is broad support for this bill. It is common sense, and I think South Australians for many years now have led the way on waste reduction, protecting the environment and conservation. I know that is something that is very true and held dearly in my electorate.

My electorate is full of natural open areas: Belair National Park, Waite Conservation Reserve and many other open spaces. Its electors are certainly environmentally conscious and want to see a proactive legislative agenda in this matter from government, so it is fantastic to see the government at the moment is proposing this debate. Part of protecting that environment and looking after our precious resources is indeed the reduction of waste and acknowledging that waste does have an impact on our environment. As a whole, as the member for Hurtle Vale alluded to in her contribution, there are a lot of good points in the bill, but there are some points that we need to nut out in the committee stage, especially around those in the disability sector.

Plastics, of course, are part of our everyday lives. They are durable, versatile and low cost. They provide high strength-to-weight ratios for many products these days to make more efficient instruments, such as cars and planes. Of course, those types of plastics using these instruments help with fuel consumption and reduce emissions. However, we are all aware of the widespread negative impact of plastic waste. According to Green Industries SA, over the last 50 years plastic production has risen from 15 million tonnes to 311 million tonnes and this is expected to double over the next 20 years.

Even small portions of that tremendous level of plastic products becoming waste in our environment leave us with significant adverse impacts across the globe. Our oceans, rivers, beaches, marine life, national parks and wildlife suffer instrumentally from plastic litter and waste. This then flows on to impact the economy, including fisheries, tourism and shipping. The cost to the marine ecosystem alone, as a result of plastic litter, is estimated by the United Nations to be $13 billion per year across the globe.

With plastics forming such a widespread part of our everyday life, yet also having such devastating negative consequences for our environment and our economy as waste, a balance needs to be found. Once again, Green Industries SA summarises the current situation well when they say:

While plastics are convenient, adaptable, useful and economically valuable material, these need to be better used, re-used and recycled.

I am immensely proud that our state leads the nation in recycling, with a staggering 84 per cent of our waste redirected from landfill and put to better use, and we have been doing so for many years. South Australia, as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, led the way with our container deposit scheme, established over 40 years ago to deal with litter reduction and resource recovery. In the context of this debate, it may be an opportune time to look at how that container deposit scheme could potentially be further enhanced and improved.

In 2017 and 2018, South Australia collection depots recovered almost 603 million containers, refunding over $60 million to the community. This wonderful initiative also helps community groups, sporting clubs and charities with much-needed funds. I certainly know that the Scouting organisations in my electorate, especially the Belair and Blackwood Scouts, are always out there collecting bottles and cans for recycling and raising much-needed funds for their scouting organisations.

We were also the first state to ban lightweight plastic bags at the check-out. Each year, since its implementation in 2009, this has helped remove 400 million single-use plastic bags from circulation in South Australia and has helped stimulate the development of alternative products. In this debate around single-use plastics, it is not just about the positive environmental effect of removing single-use plastics from circulation; it is about the stimulus to the market in creating alternative products. As we move through this COVID world, it is about what South Australia can really excel at and take advantage of, and of course that is manufacturing, in which we have had such a proud history. An area that we can go back to is secondary industries in recycling.

The pioneering efforts in the recycling space have led to a positive change in consumer behaviour, provided a great example for other states and territories to follow and brought praise from organisations like UN-Habitat, which wrote in 2010:

South Australia has demonstrated a high level of political commitment and willingness to 'stick its neck out' and implement some policies and legislation upon which other administrations take a more conservative position.

When we focus on re-using and recycling, we reap significant environmental and economic benefits. A focus on returning materials back into the economy, and re-using those materials again and again, means less waste and more opportunities for alternative product development. Recycling also generates jobs for South Australians. Once again, Green Industries SA estimates that for every 10,000 tonnes recycled 9.2 jobs are created, compared with 2.8 jobs for every 10,000 tonnes deposited into landfill. It is encouraging that this bill is a further step in continuing that proud legacy of recycling and environmental protection.

Since 2003, the recycling rate here in South Australia has improved by almost 22 per cent, as of 2017-18. Our state's vigilance in recycling metals, organics, masonry, glass, cardboard, paper and plastics has led us to have the best per capita resource recovery rate in the country. This means that 1.25 million tonnes of greenhouse gases are not being released into our environment, and that is the equivalent of planting two million trees. Every small effort in this regard makes a huge difference. Each South Australian plays their part in this success story when we use our yellow and green bins each day, adapting our own behaviour to embrace growth in recycling methods.

Nationally, COAG continues to focus, through the National Waste Policy, on improving the recyclability of our waste, increasing our capacity to recycle and improving the demand for recycled products. In this endeavour, it is vitally important that our recycling industry works well with our manufacturing sector and other new and emerging industries. The government, as one of the lead agencies and through the work of the EPA, works with industry and with our manufacturers to support those emerging industries and give them confidence and surety in their processes. Both stakeholders need to understand the aims and priorities of the other in order to ensure our recycling efforts complement the capacities of manufacturing and other industries.

Single-use plastics, such as straws, cutlery, cups, packaging and takeaway containers, feature prominently in the top 10 littered items in South Australia. I know that many of us participate in Clean Up Australia Day, and this year I was out with the Blackwood Action Group, a very keen local interest group in my community. We walked up and down Shepherds Hill Road and the predominant waste we were picking up was, indeed, plastic straws, cutlery, plastic packaging and the like.

It is estimated that in South Australia we use 700,000 straws each day and somewhere between 190,000 and 575,000 disposable coffee cups each and every day. I know that over the last three or four months of COVID-19, with more of us having takeaway coffees, that number will certainly have spiked. That is a lot of plastic in our landfill and polluting our environment each day. Recent years have seen increasing research into the damaging effects of these single-use items followed in parallel with an increase within communities to address the problem.

Through consultation, the Stakeholder Taskforce and the plastic-free precinct trials we can see clearly that South Australians want to embrace action on single-use plastics. Businesses are willing to work with government in moving away from these products, as demonstrated by many businesses already reducing their use and turning to environmentally friendly alternatives. Indeed, some businesses in my electorate are really to be commended for embracing single-use plastics already. I can bring to mind the Fish Man, Botanic Chicken and Seafood and The Little Leaf and Bean Cafe in Blackwood that have already eliminated single-use plastics from their takeaway operations.

Whilst I am broadly supportive of this bill, I want to voice my thoughts in relation to the disability sector and their needs in regard to single-use plastics, especially being vigilant in relation to durable and appropriate drinking straws, and I know that this will probably be elaborated further on in the committee stage. I know that broadly the disability sector is supportive of these changes, but we just have to make sure that people do not feel that what they currently use as, for example, drinking straws, will be removed from them and their ability to participate in outdoor dining and the like. It is very important that we look after them and have the disability sector front of mind.

Another key issue is acknowledging the important role that packaging plays in the fresh food industry. I would ask the minister to seriously consider the views of this industry in looking at how we can continue to use packaging to keep our food fresher for longer while also addressing plastic waste. Plastic packaging provides a number of benefits to the fruit and vegetable industry. It assists in what Dr Simon Lockrey, RMIT University's sustainable product expert, calls 'a balancing act between packaging and food waste'.

The Australian Fresh Produce Alliance commissioned RMIT University to conduct research into understanding the role of packaging of fresh produce. The report from this study stated that while there is concern about the level of packaging, quote:

…there are practical reasons for using packaging for certain fresh produce whether it be to ensure product integrity in the supply chain, extended shelf life and/or to avoid food waste.

Plastic packaging helps protect fresh produce on long supply chains from producer to consumer. It also supports safe food production and promotes food security. It is estimated that $20 billion worth of food is lost or wasted in Australia each year, the equivalent of around 7.3 million tonnes of food.

Packaging extends the shelf life of fresh produce, thereby helping to reduce food waste. For example, plastic film can extend the shelf life of a cucumber from a few days to around 14 to 20 days. By keeping food fresher for longer, there is more opportunity for food to be purchased and then consumed, and this is vital from a food wastage perspective and allows more Australians to access more nutritional food and seek that as an alternative to takeaway or off-the-shelf product.

Minimising food wastage is important in protecting the environment. Indeed, many studies have found that the climate impact or carbon footprint of food waste can be higher than that of the packaging used to keep it fresh. Packaging of fresh produce allows more fruit and vegetables to be available to Australians so that they can eat more nutritious food. This is especially the case in regional and remote Australia, and indeed South Australia, where haulage times are longer and where produce needs to travel further to get to the plate of the consumer.

Last year's National Health Survey found that only 51.3 per cent of Australian adults consumed the recommended daily intake of fruit. With obesity and other chronic diseases, such as diabetes, becoming real concerns for our population, helping more Australians eat more fruit and vegetables has to be a key focus. Packaging of fresh produce also protects food along the supply chain, giving people with allergies peace of mind that the products they are purchasing have not been exposed to other elements. A coeliac, for example, has confidence when purchasing a food product wrapped in plastic that the product has not been exposed to gluten while it was transported or while on display in the shop.

All these elements need to be considered in any move to change the packaging of our fruit and vegetables. There may indeed be better methods of maintaining this. We could work on shorter supply chains, promoting more ways for consumers to deal directly with producers and even develop innovative packaging solutions to replace plastic. We also need to look at the other end of the problem when thinking of plastic packaging or fresh produce and other products.

As part of the circular economy approach to packaging, can we do more to consider allowing soft plastics to be part of recycling that we do in our homes each and every week? Places like Woolies and Coles already offer to recycle people's soft plastics. Could recycling soft plastics through our household rubbish collection be a viable option in the future? I certainly hope so.

In conclusion, in the implementation of this legislation I urge the government to pay attention, to ensure that South Australians are aware of the changes that hopefully will be coming their way, that we look after small business and people who are going to be affected by this transition. Whilst I welcome the bill and believe it will have a positive impact on our environment, I believe it is so important to South Australians to lead the nation in preserving our natural environment and resources for future generations and indeed creating industry from what is an every day problem.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. S.K. Knoll.