Bills

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

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clause 7.

Clause passed.

Clauses 8 to 13 passed.

New clause 13A.

Dr CLOSE: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Close–1]—

Page 7, after line 23—After clause 13 insert:

13A—Annual report by Minister

(1) The Minister must, on or before 30 September in each year (other than in the year in which this section comes into operation), prepare a report on the operation of the provisions of this Act for the financial year ending on the preceding 30 June that includes the following:

(a) the number of reports or complaints received from members of the public in relation to breaches or purported breaches of the Act;

(b) information regarding the measures taken by authorised officers in relation to monitoring compliance with the Act;

(c) information regarding any enforcement action taken by authorised officers under the Act including—

(i) the number of persons issued with expiation notices for the purposes of the Act and the general nature of the notices; and

(ii) the number of persons charged with an offence against the Act and the general nature of the charges;

(d) an estimate of the volume of single-use plastic products that have been sold, supplied or distributed within the State by virtue of an exemption under the regulations.

(2) The Minister must, within 12 sitting days after completing the report under subsection (1), cause copies of the report to be laid before both Houses of Parliament.

As indicated, the opposition is very pleased to support this bill and will be watching with interest the way in which it is now rolled out, implemented and observed by the South Australian community.

While I accept the minister's view and share it, that in the main part South Australians seem very ready for this kind of move, and indeed may well become ready for others in the future, we cannot allow this piece of legislation to rest as our answer to the question of plastics. For that reason I move the amendment standing in my name, amendment No. 1, which will enable the parliament to receive an annual report on various matters associated with the monitoring of and compliance with the piece of legislation.

In requiring that annual report, and I say this with the greatest respect for Green Industries and also for the EPA, I think it will serve to ensure that some activity is undertaken within those agencies to make sure that there is ongoing monitoring of the compliance, and I therefore commend this amendment to the chamber.

The CHAIR: Minister, do you wish to make any points or question here?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: We are interested in taking a good look at this amendment. I have party political processes to take this to, obviously, and I have not been able to do that prior to today, so I guess the position would be to oppose it. What is the process—oppose it and then—

The CHAIR: Well, it is up to you. You can oppose it and look at it between the houses. I think that is what you do.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Yes, that is it exactly. Can you provide advice, Mr Chair?

The CHAIR: It is entirely your call, minister. Really, I think you were getting close to what you wanted.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Yes, I seek to oppose this amendment but undertake that we will give it serious consideration between the houses, similar to what we did with many of the landscape amendments that were proposed by the deputy leader.

New clause negatived.

Clause 14 passed.

Clause 15.

Dr CLOSE: I believe that clause 15 is the one that will enable the minister to construct exemptions to facilitate people with disability continuing to have access to drinking straws, being the most obvious but perhaps not the only use for it. I invite the minister to explain the process by which the government will consider the process of what the regulation will look like, including the consultation with which groups, and what are the factors that the minister will take into consideration in making a decision?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: This is a very important component of the act which I think we need to have in here to create a level of confidence amongst those in our community who might feel that the act was not necessarily inclusive because it restricts them having availability to something that is critical to the enjoyment or sustainability of their life, to be honest. Our plan is to put together the appropriate regulations to create these exemptions. We will do that through the leadership of the task force.

That task force seems to have worked really well for us to date. It has that broad membership, with people with lived experience of living with a disability on that task force, from a couple of different groups and, as a consequence, perspectives. The process of drafting the regulation will be led, or at least overseen, by the task force. There will be appropriate consultation, which would be probably through the yoursay.sa.gov.au engagement platform. We would obviously make overtures to the relevant stakeholders in the medical and disability sectors.

I have made it very clear from my contributions in this debate how important getting this right is. I will certainly be keeping a very close eye on it from a ministerial perspective in the coming weeks and months, assuming it passes both houses, when we get these regulations correct. I have given an overview of what I expect that regulation to look like, in that you could not have a situation where sale could be refused.

We also would not be requiring someone to prove that they had a particular disability or medical requirement in order for such persons to obtain those items of single-use plastic. When we are talking about those items, we mean plastic drinking straws, which I think is the key thing we are referring to here—not cutlery or drink stirrers, but the straws.

Dr CLOSE: I appreciate that I am asking a question about the regulation that would be made as a result of this clause, but if I can be indulged to just ask this question: has the minister turned his mind to how to strike the balance, where it is important that people with disabilities not be required to identify but that the response to busy businesses—we hope in future, post COVID—that are offering drinks that might have straws in them is not to simply make them as available as they are now on the basis that they then do not even have to potentially embarrass someone by asking them if they need one? Has the minister turned his mind to how he might capture that in a regulation?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The deputy leader is completely right to raise this and to indicate the trickiness of striking this balance. It will be a bit of a task to do, so we have turned our mind to it to an extent. It would largely be through the communications campaign to the business sector because the trickiness, the awkwardness, would find itself arising at the point of sale, at a bar, at a restaurant table or a place like that.

We will be backing this legislation up with a comms campaign, which I have referred to regularly throughout this debate, which will provide the business sector with that information—what their responsibilities are and what they should not do—through an educational process. Part of this is also providing awareness of the alternatives because many of the alternatives to plastic straws will, in many circumstances, be acceptable to people with disabilities—not always, but in many circumstances—particularly those rye straws or potentially re-usable silicone straws which do not have that same sensory impact that perhaps a metal straw would have.

We acknowledge the importance of getting this right. We are looking at it and we will work through it with the task force. We know that other jurisdictions, not in Australia but overseas, have done this and we will be taking a look at what they have done and how it has worked.

Dr CLOSE: Might the minister contemplate mandating an alternative as opposed to facilitating the continued use of single-use plastic straws?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I do not think we would go as far as mandating an alternative because of that sensory issue for a very small component of our community, but we would certainly be working very hard to talk to the business sector and the hospitality, catering and event sector about what those alternatives are. I also would not like to be too specific because I do think that, potentially in the short-term but certainly medium-term, more alternatives will emerge on the market.

Already there are very plastic-like compostable straws on the market, with which you would not be able to tell the difference, so we are very hopeful that the events and hospitality catering sector will quickly embrace those. I think, and certainly the feedback we get anecdotally is that in the vast majority of circumstances those would suffice.

Clause passed.

Clauses 16 and 17 passed.

New clause 18.

Dr CLOSE: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Close–1]—

Page 8, after line 36—After clause 17 insert:

18—Review of Act

(1) The Minister must, as soon as practicable after the third anniversary of the commencement of this Act, appoint a person to prepare a report on—

(a) the effect on the community of Part 2 and Part 3 of the Act; and

(b) any public information campaigns conducted by or on behalf of the Government on reducing the use of plastic products and increasing the recycling of plastics; and

(c) any other matters determined by the Minister to be relevant to the review of this Act.

(2) The person must report to the Minister within 6 months after the person's appointment.

(3) The Minister must, within 12 sitting days after receiving the report under this section, cause copies of the report to be laid before both Houses of Parliament.

This is probably spiritually similar to the first amendment, but it is about making sure that the act itself remains fit for purpose over a period of time. While at any point a government can choose to review an act, I think that we are all aware that matters are changing so quickly in regard to the environment, to pollution and specifically to the use and abuse of plastic in our world, that it would be useful to ensure that there is a review on at least the third anniversary of the act to ensure that it remains up to date. By then, a lot of work might have been done in regulation, depending on choices made by ministers of the day, and it may well be useful to modify what is in regulation and what is in legislation.

You will also note that I have included a clause about information campaigns. They have been referred to in the minister's speeches. I think it is important that there be a review that looks at how well information campaigns have operated and how well they have worked, not only in the specifics of getting rid of the single-use plastics that are identified in that early clause but, more generally, in the lessening of the reliance on the use of plastic and the increase in its recycling, which will presumably all be allied to the publicity campaigns that will be run. I urge the committee to support this new clause.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Similarly to the last clause, we will oppose this administratively, undertaking to have a discussion with my party room and make a decision between the houses as to our position. I am certainly not opposed philosophically to this. We want to get the balance right, obviously, between too much bureaucracy for GISA and the EPA to have to administer, but I equally see the merit in the deputy leader's position.

New clause negatived.

Title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS (Black—Minister for Environment and Water) (15:56): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.