Bills

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

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 3 June 2020.)

Ms WORTLEY (Torrens) (12:01): I rise to speak briefly on the Single-use and Other Plastic Products (Waste Avoidance) Bill. In doing so, I note that the shadow minister, the member for Port Adelaide, has already foreshadowed that we will be seeking to introduce some amendments that address the issues of reporting and review.

We all know just how big a role plastic has in our daily lives, and I often highlight to family and friends my concern at the amount of packaging there is for products that we purchase. May I also add how difficult it is for people in our community who have difficulty with finger and hand movements to unwrap this packaging. We only have to open our fridges and our pantries to see the amount of single-use plastic we accumulate and then dispose of on a weekly basis, and we can then multiply that by the population in South Australia.

It has an enormous impact on our environment. Sadly, we see so much of this going into our waste streams, making its way through our watercourses and into the ocean, which really is a tragedy. In my electorate of Torrens, many of my residents are diligent about sorting their waste, including plastics, into the right bins. When speaking with students in my local schools, it really is heartening to see the great way they contribute to the whole debate about our environment and climate change.

As we know, there are single-use disposable plastic products that can be replaced with other forms of products, and one of these examples, of course, is straws. However, in doing so we need to address the exceptional circumstances where these products are necessary. Only this week I spoke with a friend whose daughter lives with cerebral palsy, and I know that metal straws and paper straws are not suitable alternatives for her, so we need to make sure that consideration is given to people with exceptional circumstances.

The early days of encouraging consumers to consider the environmental impact of product go back to the alternative for single-use plastic products with the refund on plastic bottles, where consumers can get a return deposit. Under the Dunstan Labor government, the Beverage Container Act 1975 was introduced principally to reduce littering and to encourage recycling.

There have been a number of significant changes to the container deposit scheme since its inception, largely relating to the types of beverage containers covered, which now includes plastic bottles, and there has also been an increase in the refund amount. This led to more South Australians participating, resulting in less litter in our streets and of course less being sent to landfill. For 35 years, South Australia was the only state with container deposit legislation.

I recently visited Adelaide Botanic High School and was impressed to see their water fountain system, where students are able to fill a water bottle with water from the fountain, and as they do it clocks up another bottle that has not been used and gone into landfill; it is about the number of bottles they keep out of the system. In 2009, the Rann Labor government introduced the phasing out of lightweight plastic shopping bags, and many of us here today give out shopping bags to our residents—of course, they are fabric shopping bags that can be used many, many times.

So the Single-use and Other Plastic Products (Waste Avoidance) Bill before us today is a further step towards reducing the impact of waste on our environment, and I am pleased to be able to stand here today to support it.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS (Black—Minister for Environment and Water) (12:05): It gives me great pleasure to be able to close the debate on the Single-use and Other Plastic Products (Waste Avoidance) Bill 2020. I would like to take the time to thank all members for their contributions to the second reading of the bill and to thank them for their thoughtful ideas and input, the anecdotes they provided from their own personal experiences and particularly the stories and advocacy they had received and heard from the electorates that they have the privilege of representing.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind—and it came forth in the anecdotes in speeches from both sides of this house—that the South Australian public is both proud of our heritage, in terms of waste management and resource recovery, and very excited about the future. I have absolutely no doubt that the South Australian community wants us to maintain that heritage and continue to push the boundaries when it comes to world-leading waste management and resource recovery. Single-use plastic legislation forms a key part of what the South Australian community expects of their government and of their political leaders and local representatives in this place. It is heartening to see a broad level of support for this legislation across all sides of politics in South Australia.

South Australia is a global leader. We are a global leader in waste management and resource recovery, and we are right to be immensely proud of the way that our state continues to implement best practice policies, procedures, programs and initiatives in the area of waste management and resource recovery. We can take that heritage back to 1977, when South Australia was the first mover in this country when we implemented the world-leading container deposit legislation. We were so advanced at the time that it has taken other jurisdictions decades to catch up, and they are only just getting there now. In fact, I believe Victoria only announced a few weeks ago that they were moving down the path of a container deposit legislation scheme, and it will be a couple of years yet before they catch up.

I was greatly interested to read on the BBC website and to hear from colleagues in Scotland that Scotland is going to go down this path in the coming months as well. They have actually been inspired by the work of the government of South Australia in this area. A delegation from Scotland visited a couple of years ago and were really inspired by what South Australia has done over several decades. They obviously took that back to Scotland and have now made the announcement that the Scottish government will be implementing a container deposit scheme, inspired by South Australia. Obviously, I was very pleased about that.

I had the opportunity to speak to Roseanna Cunningham, the Scottish environment minister, when I was over there in August 2019. Interestingly, she was actually educated in Australia and went over and became Scotland's environment minister, and I came from Scotland to be South Australia's environment minister—so a little bit of quirkiness there.

The bill marks another historic moment for our state. It is another way that we are demonstrating South Australia's leadership in waste management and resource recovery. We know other jurisdictions are looking at us as an example, and they will follow us. It might take them some time, but they will follow us in taking action regarding single-use plastics. I hope it does not take them that long but, unfortunately, based on the historic pattern, sometimes it does take them too long to catch up.

Feedback from the South Australian community during consultation has been exceptionally clear: South Australians are committed to the environment and they want action on single-use plastic products. That has been the message we have had face to face from community members; it is a message we have had from many businesses, hearing that their customers are seeking alternative products to single-use plastics, and that is coming at point of sale from cafes, restaurants and events organisations. Albeit they have been through a tough time in the era of COVID-19, the message I am getting from retailers, catering organisations, cafes and restaurants, is that they most certainly want to see progress on this to give themselves certainty and to provide a level of comfort and confidence amongst their customer base.

I reiterate to the house that this bill only seeks to restrict and prohibit the products listed in clause 6(1), as well as oxo-degradable plastic products. Before adding other items to the list of prohibited plastic products via regulation, the consultation process outlined in clause 6(2) must be undertaken. Members have referred to the benefits of plastic through their speeches in the second reading part of this debate. Those benefits include in relation to the packaging of food. I am aware of these benefits, and they are important considerations that will be taken into account in considering other products that may be added to the list of prohibited plastic products in the future.

We know that plastic is a good thing in many ways. It has led to the modernisation of our nation and many other nations. It has led to greater hygiene and has seen the preservation of food. Plastic is not in itself a bad thing, and we should not get caught up in that, but when dealt with in inappropriate ways, when discarded into the environment, when used in a way that sees it become overabundant and unnecessary, plastic is not good in that regard.

It is important to draw that line between plastic as something that is an incredible invention of the 20^th century and plastic that is a great environmental problem. We acknowledge the great benefits of plastic, the modernisation it has led to, but of course acknowledge the environmental problems that it has also led to. This legislation has been introduced into parliament by the Marshall Liberal government because we see those environmental impacts and want South Australia to continue that leadership in dealing with them.

As members would be aware, there is a need for further parliamentary scrutiny of all regulations, and this will be applied through the Legislative Review Committee as well as the availability of motions of disallowance should the community or members representing the community have a concern that something that is being proposed to be banned down the track will be inappropriate for a particular reason.

During consultation on the draft bill, submissions were received from national business associations and companies representing a diverse range of business interests that were supportive of the government's action on single-use plastic products. They emphasised the importance of allowing sufficient time to adjust to the new arrangements, reduce existing stocks and transition to alternative products. These concerns will be addressed through setting a date when the operation of the legislation will come into operation, and will be assisted by communication and awareness campaigns led by my portfolio.

In relation to local manufacturers who may be impacted by this legislation, I am advised that the response has again been exceptionally positive. Although some South Australian companies may be affected by the ban more than others, most offer a diverse range of product lines and are not solely reliant on the selling of products that are likely to be prohibited by this legislation.

The majority of businesses in South Australia that supply these types of products source them from various producers and manufacturers, and many are imported from overseas. It is expected that suppliers will quickly adapt to the changing market to meet the growing demand for equal friendly alternatives, and we are seeing that already in cafes, restaurants and events-based organisations and in households all across the state. People are adapting. There is a consumer push to see that adaptation, and this in itself is driving a greater availability and, of course, lower costs because of market demands around the availability of these products.

There is also a great opportunity for South Australia to position itself as the place where these products are made. That will create jobs in South Australia and will lead to a situation where, when the other states do catch up and when demand increases in those states, South Australia can really put its hand up and say, 'Hey, we're over here. We're already in this space. Not only do we have the legislation backing us up in South Australia with runs on the board there but we also have the manufacturers of these alternative products based here in South Australia.'

We are seeing those manufacturers develop their capacity. I think of BioBag in Richmond. I have had the pleasure of being able to visit that organisation. They are doing great work, providing those plastic barrier bags, which can be used in households for lining kitchen caddies or in supermarkets as barrier bags and various other places. I think the opportunity for an organisation like BioBag with this sort of legislation is really substantial.

We are seeing organisations manufacturing alternatives to straws in South Australia as well. I have had the pleasure of dealing with an organisation called Mister Rye, which is looking at using a rye product from South Australian farms, treating the leftover part of the grain harvest to turn them into straws. It has been great that the couple involved in this company live down in my electorate in Seacliff. They are actually here on an entrepreneurial visa and are developing this alternative plastic product as part of their time in South Australia through that visa.

We can actually see examples of this legislation and the foreshadowing of this legislation over the last few months driving innovation and entrepreneurialism in the start-up sector as well. We know that some South Australian businesses are already transitioning substantially away from single-use plastic products, and suppliers are adapting to these consumer and business preferences. We have seen that feedback referenced in the 'Turning the tide' discussion paper and the consultation undertaken through the process of the draft bill.

We also have an important family-owned packaging business in our state. It is showing significant support for a legislative approach to single-use plastics as well. It already produces other types of products that are able to be recycled and composted. We hope, again, by sending this market signal, organisations like that can grab hold of the opportunity and expand and grow their base not just in South Australia but further afield as well.

Although sales associated with the ban on prohibited plastic products will cease, legislation such as this provides businesses that opportunity to know that there is a pathway, that government is really aligning itself with an environment that is freer of single-use plastics and that community sentiment and expectations are backing that up as a foundation. This emergence of a wide range of alternative products to single-use plastics really is testimony to how the market can respond, and absolutely the business sector should watch this.

They should scrutinise what government is doing. I think the business sector does have the confidence, but I would say quite clearly to the business sector that we want to work alongside you to minimise impacts and to create opportunities through this legislation rather than negatives. As mentioned by the member for Ramsay in her contribution to this debate, there are existing South Australian manufacturers of a whole range of products. I have come across these people and these organisations, and members on the other side of the house have certainly done so as well.

Interestingly, Business SA conducted a survey amongst its members on single-use plastics to inform feedback in the 'Turning the tide' discussion paper, of which the manufacturing sector was the most represented respondent. The results showed strong support for measures to reduce single-use plastics, including through legislation and regulation.

As referred to in my introductory speech to this legislation, there are a number of national initiatives underway in this area, and significant efforts are being made to improve the recyclability and recycled content of plastic packaging, while also phasing out unnecessary and problematic single-use plastics. Again, it is great that South Australia is able to lead the way nationally and really show what a state that has its house in order with regard to this type of regulation and legislation can look like.

The government is very clearly committed to inclusiveness around this area, and this is why a broad exemption has been proposed to allow continued access to single-use plastic drinking straws for members of our community who rely on them. The government has listened to feedback from representatives of people living with disabilities and people with lived experience through the Single-use Plastic Stakeholder Taskforce, and we have decided not to prescribe specific outlets for the sale or supply of single-use plastic drinking straws, instead opting for a broader availability of these products to ensure that they remain easily accessible for those who need them.

I agree that we need to ensure there is no onus on people to have to provide proof in order to access the products they need to consume food and beverages safely. The government has made specific reference to that in the explanatory information that was made available publicly on the introduction of the bill to explain the proposed exemption. I look forward to refining the exemption and the development of regulations and encouraging contributions from stakeholders and interested persons, particularly those with lived experience.

It has been really good to be able to sit down with those people as part of the task force that we have established to help shape this draft legislation and to hear from those groups about the particular challenges they think that this legislation could have caused if not drafted in the right way. It is fair to say that they have given this legislation a ringing endorsement through that task force. We have had really solid feedback that they believe there is inclusiveness within this legislation and that the possibility that it could unintentionally not be seen as inclusive has been dealt with by the way that the legislation has been drafted.

We would be very keen to ensure that is continued through the regulations and we will be feeding back to those people, capturing their views again and relying on them for insight and advice as to how those regulations are shaped going forward. I note the deputy leader's comments about enforcement and agree that a credible option of enforcement is required to support implementation of the legislation. This is not unusual or uncommon.

There has been the same enforcement in place for container deposit legislation and the products that sit under that, and also the single-use plastic bag legislation, which was implemented by the previous government back in 2009. The same sort of compliance regime needs to be in place, although I do suspect that after a fairly short period of time South Australians, as they have done in the past, will embrace this legislation, will be proud of it and will simply get on with doing the right thing.

It is the government's clear intention that the regulatory approach will focus on education and communication about prohibited products and that efforts will be first made to support businesses in their transition to alternative products. However, as outlined in the bill, expiations and penalties can be applied and certainly will be, with my encouragement, if required.

The EPA, as the state's independent environmental regulator, will be able to take action where the authority considers it appropriate, for example, where systemic or ongoing noncompliance occurs, obviously using the tools of education and awareness raising in the first instance but of course moving to a compliance regime should there be wilful noncompliance identified. Success of this legislation will be a shift in consumer behaviour and a transition to other products not necessarily in the number of expiations issued or the number of penalties applied.

I would like to reiterate that the government will be undertaking communication activities in the lead-up to and during implementation of the legislation to support businesses in understanding their obligations and to help them to transition to alternative products. My portfolio agency, Green Industries SA—and I am immensely proud of the work that it has done in developing this legislation and consulting on it—have the experience in this regard as an agency. Back when it was then Zero Waste they implemented communications activities to support the ban in lightweight single-use plastic shopping bags with very substantial success.

The Single-use Plastic Stakeholder Taskforce, which comprises business, industry, retail, disability, local government and conservation representatives, is helping to inform these communications activities from their respective experiences, and obviously then they will be able to push those through. They are particularly activated networks as well. The task force is also being informed by the experience of trialling plastic-free precincts across the state, which has been a great success to date trying to create particular areas where there is energy and enthusiasm around the phasing out of single-use plastics and the discovery and implementation of alternative products.

The initial group of single-use plastic free precincts—or plastic-free precincts in shorthand—are Jetty Road, Brighton; The Parade, Norwood; the Central Markets; and all the surf lifesaving clubs across the state. There are more of those plastic-free precincts being rolled out, but those four initial precincts have gone really well. We have learnt from it, they have learnt from it and there has been a real level of progress in terms of those business communities and NGO communities learning what works for them and sharing those stories with their communities and other players in their industries.

It is intended that our communications activities will provide practical guidance for businesses and industry sectors which are impacted by the legislation. Communications with businesses will make it clear that it will not be an offence under the legislation to sell or supply single-use plastic drinking straws to members of the community who require them due to disability or medical need, and that no proof is required to enable this transaction.

The government will recommend that businesses supply alternatives to single-use plastic drinking straws for their customers generally but also maintain a small stock of plastic straws to enable people to access those if needed on request. Assistance with signage to communicate this will also be provided. As referenced, too, by the deputy leader, there is a significant amount of greenwashing of products in relation to environmental claims that create confusion amongst the community. This bill seeks to address the products that are not genuinely compostable and will break down into microplastics causing as many problems, if not more, than they seek to avoid.

This greenwashing is a great concern of mine and I see it in supermarkets. The deputy leader was right to raise it, and it is something we want to deal with. I actually had a message from the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, presumably taken in a Barossa supermarket, where he was confused about a product called 'greener' so and so, when it was actually just a product name for plastic bags made of oxo-degradable plastics, and certainly would not be beneficial for the environment.

There are too many people just walking up to supermarket shelves and grabbing particular products—although we cannot blame people for doing this while they are doing their shopping—thinking that, because it had a big sign on it saying 'greener' so and so, or 'greener' whatever, that it was a product that could be put in the green bin or would break down very quickly through a normal waste management process. We know that is not the case, and we do need to get on top of these oxo-degradable plastics.

The definition of oxo-degradable plastic in the legislation is broad enough to capture the different names used for these products: for example, 'oxo-biodegradable' and 'degradable', where additives have been included to accelerate their breakdown into smaller pieces of plastic but are not—as too many people think—able to be composted.

In relation to greenwashing claims, there is also a role for consumer affair authorities in holding companies to account for their claims. This legislation does not seek to address all misleading environmental claims that could be pursued under Australian Consumer Law. To support enforcement of this part of the legislation, the bill contains a provision that enables the EPA to seek certification from manufacturers and producers as to whether or not their products contain oxo-degradable plastic. A form to guide this requirement is to be developed by the EPA and will be made public should businesses wish to proactively seek this information.

As mentioned earlier, communication activities will help businesses and suppliers understand the requirements of the legislation and to find appropriate alternative products, including the replacement of any oxo-degradable plastic products. A big part of this will clearly be education, and raising awareness amongst retailers and consumers, about what oxo-degradable is and why it is not as good as the packaging might suggest. If businesses are seeking products that are able to be legitimately composted, the government strongly recommends these products have the appropriate certification to Australian standards. If not, they should be seeking appropriate re-usable and recyclable alternatives.

As outlined in my introductory speech, and in a number of remarks made in the public domain through the media, I will be considering the impacts of coronavirus and social distancing measures on businesses in determining a commencement date for this legislation, acknowledging that during this era of coronavirus being present in our country, and existing as a threat to our state, that it is necessary to pay attention to that in deciding when this legislation will commence. It is my very dear hope that this will occur towards the end of 2020. I have made that statement publicly and that remains my hope.

I really do hope that the amount of single-use plastic, which we know has gone up in this difficult season, will hopefully start to drop down quite dramatically again. We do not want to get into a situation where the war on single-use plastic, which we were making some really good progress on in South Australia, is undone unintentionally as a consequence of the difficulties that have emerged since the beginning of 2020.

I note the deputy leader's amendments that have been placed on file. While I am not in a position to outline the government's response to these, at this point I am happy to enter the committee stage up until the first of those amendments in about clause 12, I believe. This bill, along with the progressive policy initiatives being implemented within this state, and having been implemented over many decades in this state, keeps South Australia in a leadership position at the forefront of waste management resource recovery and litter management and, importantly and critically, in circular economy development in South Australia.

We do not want this just to be a big stick approach that says you should not be using single-use plastics. This government believes we need to significantly reduce the presence of single-use plastics in our state. We believe that will have really substantial conservation benefits in our outdoor areas, in our parks, along our coastline, in our marine environments, and we think this is something that South Australians will grab hold of, they will be proud of, they will promote and they will do well in achieving.

The word 'historic' might be a little bit overused in this place, but I think it is a special moment to see this legislation begin its journey towards the other place and hopefully through both houses of parliament in the coming weeks. This is good legislation—it will do good things and it will set South Australia in a position of continued leadership—and we should all be proud of the heritage that we have in waste management and resource recovery. I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1 passed.

Clause 2.

Dr CLOSE: My question acknowledges that the minister has partially addressed this in his close of second reading speech, but I would like to understand better what triggers he will use to decide to commence the act, to have the act come into operation. I appreciate, and I think we all support, the challenge of the COVID crisis. Is it actually an end to the emergency period, or are there other triggers that will be used?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Thank you, deputy leader, for that question. It is a really sensible question because it is something that there is an uncertainty about; there is no doubt about that. I think it probably goes a little beyond the emergency period. We always anticipated having a period of time between the legislation passing and commencement so that we could undertake substantial education and communication activities, notwithstanding this legislation being well discussed publicly for some time now.

I mentioned in my closing remarks that we have a very successful task force with lots of representation from industry, and we have conservation groups advocates from the disability sector and the like on it. I will certainly be going to them and working through this, consulting with them and seeking a level of confidence that they think this is ready to be commenced. I have to say that my threshold is not going to be ridiculously high.

I think the South Australian public are ready for this legislation. I think they want it. You should not pay too much attention to social media, but when we put this bill in, right in the midst of COVID and potentially a worrying time for South Australia, I thought, 'Is this the right time?' However, the social media sentiment was very much 'get on with it', so I think South Australians are ready for this. My view is that we should be looking towards the end of the year for this, probably the last quarter of 2020, but I will be seeking advice and endorsement, to some extent, from the task force that we have established and will go from there.

Dr CLOSE: I would invite the minister to clarify which elements will be prohibited from immediate commencement and which ones will be deferred for a longer period of time.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: There will be a number of tranches in this. Our hope is that the legislation has durability into the future and can continue to be updated through the regulation side of things. But the first tranche, which we expect to commence when the legislation is commenced, would be straws, drink stirrers and plastic cutlery, which make up a very significant proportion of the single-use plastic discarded waste stream, particularly the straws and the plastic cutlery. Drink stirrers are a little bit less present these days. Then, 12 months later, we will move into that expanded polystyrene product range: the clamshell takeaway containers and the like and the oxo-degradable products as well. That will be 12 months after the legislation.

I really hope that over time the parliament will identify other products to phase out through regulation, but also that the community will push for certain items as well, and it will become obvious over time when other things will need to be phased out. There are a couple of things that we need to get a handle on: barrier bags—we know there are alternatives there—and we also need to work out the future of coffee cups and how they are dealt with.

Clause passed.

Clause 3.

Dr CLOSE: There is a reference to the oxo-degradable plastic, and of course it is then scattered through the bill, but I thought I would ask my question at this point. What other products are there that have the same consequences of being degradable, are often being sold as degradable, but in fact are not compostable? Is all of that kind of product encapsulated under the title of oxo-degradable or are there other materials that have a similar issue but are not known as oxo-degradable?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: This is a relatively tricky area, but we have drafted the legislation so that it will capture all the products that have those additives within them that will accelerate the breaking up—probably breaking up is a better word for me to use—of these items. Often the main sorts of items are the plastic bags. The definition and the way this is interpreted in the legislation, it captures oxo-degradable but also degradable and oxo-biodegradable. It is these items that have the additive within them that sees that fragmenting of the plastic product. We think we have probably been able to capture all of that.

Our focus really will be, in terms of compliance and educational awareness among the retailers and the consumer as well—because we want to knock off interest in these products and raise community awareness around greenwashing—around the plastic bags, the bin liners, the sandwich bags, the things that people are accidentally lining their kitchen caddies with and dropping into the green bin, thinking that that will just break down through the industrial composting process at Jeffries or Peats and the like, but actually that will not be the case. Hopefully that answers the deputy leader's query.

Dr CLOSE: Thank you. Are there products that are sold as degradable that do not have an accelerant in them but nonetheless are sold as degradable and eventually break down but are not compostable? Is there another category of product?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Yes, there could be another strand of product here that does not have the additives but could be referenced as degradable. At this point, we would direct the compliance through Australian Consumer Law because it becomes difficult for us to focus in on. It is one of those things: how long is a piece of string? That word can be used quite loosely and we know where the problem is here. The government is going to have a particular focus on where we think the problem is, but no doubt there could be other things that crop up from time to time and the Australian Consumer Law legislation and pathway could be used there.

Clause passed.

Clauses 4 and 5 passed.

Clause 6.

Dr CLOSE: The list that has been presented here is obviously one that has a high degree of support and endorsement from the task force and also the wider community. What other items were considered for inclusion and not supported to be on this initial list?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Thank you, deputy leader. As you have identified, that list in clause 6—Prohibited plastic products, goes through those sort of headline items that we have talked a lot about publicly. This is really where the task force focused most of its efforts because these had been identified through consultation as being those items that are used a lot, are around, that people understand are a problem, and that come up in the KESAB surveys and the like.

The other items which were really considered in a broad sense, and which I think we should be looking at in the medium to longer term, are coffee cups. The great challenge with coffee cups is that you get some that are compostable, you get some that are recyclable and you get some that are neither, and we have to do a bit of work around what we think is the standard that South Australians should be after.

The compostable cups are only compostable if they go through the industrial composting process through the green kerbside bin, the recyclable ones sometimes have to be put through a particular process that separates the plastic lining from them, and then there are others in the mix that are neither and can only really end up in the municipal waste bin. We do need to get a handle on coffee cups. It probably needs a further bit of work around it and probably a bit of research as well.

With the thicker plastic bags, as you would be aware, the previous government really successfully saw a massive reduction in the presence of lightweight plastic bags in South Australia. Creeping in over time have been those thicker plastic bags, which are very readily available at the point of sale in supermarkets but also in the more boutique stores, so I think we probably do need to look at that in the medium term.

I am very keen to look at barrier bags, the items you put your fruit and veg in at the markets or in the fruit and veg aisle in the supermarket. The alternative is there, the price point is coming down and we know there are manufacturers in South Australia, so we could be very well placed to move on those in the medium term. We then need to look at broader categories of takeaway plastics and takeaway containers, whether beverage containers or food containers. All those things were discussed in broad terms by the task force, but we expect to focus in on them in the future.

Dr CLOSE: What process will be used, presumably by Green Industries, to work through how to assess what will come up next? I appreciate the list has already been given of what is likely to be considered next, but what process will be undertaken, particularly to address the coffee cup and barrier bag issues, which are both areas which people might have expected to see on this list?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: You are right to say that there is likely to be a desire from some parts of the community to see this legislation go further. I think we probably have the initial list right for the time being to get us a vehicle to move forward with this legislation, but I do not think it is any secret from the sentiment that I am suggesting that certainly while I am the minister I will be seeking us to prosecute a few more items and try to look for opportunities. There would obviously be nothing to stop members of this place or the other place from in the future bringing forward regulations to add other items.

The task force will continue. It may not meet quite as often, but certainly through this period of implementation, in fact, it may meet just as often, to be honest. Through the communications and the implementation and working at the compliance and the acceptance of the legislation, the task force will continue to be in existence. I foresee it continuing for the foreseeable future. As a consequence, there will be an avenue through that task force for other items to be looked at.

I guess the next tranche of items has the possibility of perhaps being a little bit more disruptive to business. I think business is up for the challenge in many ways, but the coffee cups one, because of the confusion out there and the need to come to a landing around what constitutes an acceptable coffee cup product in South Australia where people do not get confused as to which bin they put it in, I think will need a fair bit more work and consultation with industry. It probably needs a bit more consultation with the community as well. With thicker plastic bags and barrier bags, there is also a little bit of business impact there, probably no more so than the plastic cutlery or the straws, though, and there probably needs to be a bit more consultation on an expanded version of takeaway containers as well.

I see this as an evolving process. The task force will stay in place. Whether I am the minister or it is someone else down the track, there will be an element required of ministerial leadership and discretion as to what to push forward. Certainly, there would be an opportunity for people simply to propose products to the minister or to Green Industries SA down the track.

But I guess my message is that there is certainly a willingness from me at a ministerial level, and I think there is an administrative willingness within the bureaucracy just to keep on progressing this journey. The evidence of that is the way we have set up the legislation to make it quite easy to add things over time without needing to go through the whole legislative process but, instead, bring those in to the parliament via regulation.

Clause passed.

Clause 7.

Dr CLOSE: I have a question here about the impact on South Australian businesses. I appreciate that the businesses would not be able to sell into the South Australian market but would be able to continue to sell interstate if they make these products. What is the estimate of the impact on any business, and obviously Detmold is one, for them to lose the South Australian market?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I do not have a specific cost estimate on what financial impact this would have. We have worked closely alongside the major packaging businesses in this state, the Detpak products being the most significant. They have a fairly significant recyclable arm to their organisation and they also have some compostable products as well, I think. The move amongst all the packaging manufacturers that we have spoken to has been quite rapidly towards products which would be likely to meet the requirements of this legislation.

I think the direction the wind has been blowing on this has been present for the last few years. Many of these businesses are innovative and entrepreneurial and have seen that they do need to evolve. I think it is impossible to please everyone all of the time with this but I think we have a fairly good level of support from business, certainly from Business SA as the state's Chamber of Commerce providing an endorsement of this legislation. I cannot put a figure on potential financial losses. I think that is probably quite hard to quantify, particularly when businesses are developing these alternatives and pushing them into the market probably in front of the products that might not be acceptable under this legislation.

Dr CLOSE: Did any of these companies get in touch with either Green Industries or the ministerial office to raise any concerns about impact on their business?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: There were no organisations which got in touch specifically to oppose the legislation. I think they were probably quite nervous, too, given the community support for it. Most of their overtures were around the time in terms of transition time, ensuring that there were appropriate transition periods in place. I met with Detmold and that conversation was really quite positive.

There was some correspondence, which the deputy leader may have received, from an organisation called Dairy Luv in the last couple of weeks, which was probably based on a bit of a false premise that this would somehow block their product. There is no intention in the legislation at this stage to do anything of the sort, and anything in the future would be by regulation which would obviously be disallowable. We are open to having conversations with any business that feels they are particularly impacted, but there has not been that significant level of concern raised, and all these groups have been fairly well represented, I would suggest, through the task force process.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00.