HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2017-10-31 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Environment Protection (Waste Reform) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the house.

A quorum having been formed:

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Minister for Education and Child Development, Minister for Higher Education and Skills) (21:13): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading and explanation of clauses inserted in Hansard without my reading it.

Leave granted.

South Australia enjoys a national and an international reputation as a clean, green and beautiful State.

This hasn't come about by accident.

It has happened because of our commitment to protecting the environment while also growing our economy.

A commitment that has led to our establishing South Australia as one of the world's best recyclers.

Promoted by policy settings that have encouraged resource recovery over the past decade, the State's waste and resource recovery sector has grown into a significant part of our economy, comprising a $1 billion industry and employing nearly 5,000 people.

Further growth, including significant job creation, has been identified as possible with the next series of modernised regulatory and policy settings.

The South Australian Government is pursuing a broad waste reform program for the confident operation and expansion of this sector.

The Environment Protection (Waste Reform) Amendment Bill 2017 proposes amendments to the Environment Protection Act 1993 to support the South Australian Government in continuing to lead the way in waste management and resource recovery.

The Bill will provide the necessary underpinning to enable the Environment Protection Authority to implement important waste reforms.

These further steps include a suite of staged measures that will enhance competition, provide stability to the waste and resource recovery sector, facilitate the sector's expansion, and encourage innovation.

This Bill supports economic, environmental and health benefits for South Australia.

Being able to improve recycling rates and improve resource recovery also helps to reduce water and energy use, cut greenhouse gas emissions, conserve natural resources and create new jobs.

As well setting up the architecture to enable the EPA to undertake further reforms, the Bill also provides improved tools for dealing with excessive stockpiling, waste levy avoidance, illegal dumping and contraventions of the Environment Protection Act.

These changes will increase justice and fairness for legitimate operators who are unfairly impacted by the economic gains obtained by those who avoid or delay the costs involved in the safe and lawful disposal or recovery of waste through excessive stockpiling, misclassifying material or illegal dumping.

The Bill upholds the polluter pays principle, holding relevant operators responsible for costs arising from their operations rather than either: State or local governments or innocent land owners bearing these; or, communities suffering the health, amenity and environmental consequences of non-action.

The Bill strengthens the tools available for enforcement and prosecution of illegal dumping. In doing so, it provides further deterrence for those that might contemplate such action.

It is important to acknowledge that the waste levy does not create an incentive for illegal dumping. Illegal dumping still occurs where the costs of disposing are low or even free. For example, in Queensland, there is no waste levy, and yet they report cases of illegal dumping in their community.

Indeed, a 2012 review by KPMG of the New South Wales Waste Levy concluded 'illegal dumping is not due to pricing signals, but rather a convenience factor'.

By improving the illegal dumping provisions, it is hoped that illegal dumping across the State will reduce and deliver improved community benefit.

Consultation

This Bill is part of a broader reform package initiated by this Government in 2015 in close consultation with the industry and broader sector.

Consultation to develop the Bill has been extensive and I would like to thank all organisations, agencies and individuals who provided feedback in the development of the key reforms and priorities that informed the preparation of the draft Bill and submissions made during the public consultation on the draft Bill.

Consultation on the proposals in the Bill first occurred between August and October 2015 through the discussion paper, Reforming waste management – Creating certainty for an industry to grow, which identified key areas of reform necessary for the waste industry to prosper. Submissions received informed the drafting of the Bill.

A draft of this Bill, supported by an explanatory paper, subsequently underwent consultation in September—November 2016. Submissions from consultation on the draft Bill also informed the form of the Bill presented to you here.

The strategic direction of waste reforms and their prioritisation has also been informed by regular meetings of the EPA's high-level advisory group, comprising industry, local government, non-government organisation and community representatives.

Key industry stakeholders have shown a strong degree of support for the rapid pursuit of the Bill and subsequent key reforms.

Key features

Before I close, I want to draw all Honourable Members' attention to key aspects of this Bill.

For example, explicit powers to enable the regulation of material flow and stockpiling through amendments to the objects of the Environment Protection Act and new powers regarding stockpiling conditions to support the legitimate resource recovery sector.

These changes are also supported by improved and proportionate powers for tackling breaches of licence conditions and expansion of the circumstances when financial assurances can be used (including insurance) to protect against environmental, abandonment and distortion risks in the waste sector while supporting innovation.

Additionally, the Bill will introduce a process enabling assessment of materials as approved recovered resources and changed evidentiary requirements about waste to support innovative and safe resource recovery.

As I have mentioned before, the Bill also strengthen the EPA's ability to prosecute illegal dumping strengthening car owners' responsibilities for dumping from their vehicle, enabling the use of tracking devices, expanding EPA authorised officer powers to enter certain premises and mark materials that are likely to be illegally dumped and improving monitoring of waste and related material movements.

The state government wants to unlock future potential and drive innovation in the sector with targeted and effective changes to the Environment Protection Act 1993.

We seek to continue to lead the way in demonstrating that we can both protect our environment and support business and job growth.

I commend the Bill to Members.

Explanation of Clauses

Part 1—Preliminary

1—Short title

2—Commencement

3—Amendment provisions

These clauses are formal.

Part 2—Amendment of Environment Protection Act 1993

4—Amendment of section 3—Interpretation

This clause amends section 3 of the Act in a number of ways, by introducing several new terms that are key to the measure, including approved recovered resource, resource recovery and unauthorised stockpiling, and by clarifying other definitions, including pollutant, waste and vehicle. The definition of the waste management hierarchy is brought into the Act, reflecting the frequent reference to this principle in statutory instruments made under the Act.

The clarification of terms in new subsections (4) and (5) reflects existing provisions that are brought up to the level of the Act from the Environment Protection (Waste to Resources) Policy 2010. These are key concepts that have broad application.

5—Insertion of sections 4 to 4B

New sections 4, 4A and 4B are inserted. They are headed, respectively: Waste, Approved recovered resources and Waste management hierarchy.

New section 4 (Waste) gives the term a section of its own and it is here that we find a key concept of this measure, namely that of approved recovered resources that allows the argument of whether or not matter constitutes waste to be determined on a case by case basis. A reference to the term waste (when used in the Act or in the regulations or environment protection policies made under the Act) will not include an approved recovered resource whilst it is being dealt with in accordance with the declaration of that resource under section 4A.

New section 4A (Approved recovered resources) is a regulation-making power enabling a scheme to be set out by regulation under which declarations of approved recovered resources may be made by the Authority by Gazette notice.

New section 4B (Waste management hierarchy) sets out the principle of the waste management hierarchy, discussed above.

6—Amendment and redesignation of section 4—Responsibility for pollution

Section 4 is amended by including the term 'dispose of', thereby ensuring that disposal comprised of stockpiling or abandoning a pollutant (see new section 3(4)(a)) will be brought within the concept of responsibility for pollution.

This clause also redesignates the section as section 5C so that it is in a more logical position in the Act.

7—Amendment of section 5—Environmental harm

This section is amended to clarify that declarations, in subordinate instruments made under the Act (ie the regulations or environment protection policies), of environmental harm will have effect for the purposes of the Act (and not merely for the purposes of the instrument in which the declaration is made). It also brings the wording of section 5A of the Act into section 5 itself, enabling section 5A to be repealed. (Similar changes are also made to the definitions of pollutant and waste.)

8—Insertion of section 5D

New section 5D (Liability for certain offences from vehicles) is inserted. This section presumes an owner of a vehicle to have committed an offence if an activity is carried on in, at, from, or in connection with the use of, the vehicle, resulting in a principal offence. A principal offence is defined as an offence against Part 8 Division 2 or Part 9 of the Act or an offence prescribed by regulation. An owner of a vehicle is defined—

(a) in the case of a vessel within the meaning of the Harbors and Navigation Act 1993—as having the same meaning as in section 4(1) of that Act, and as including the operator of the vessel within the meaning of that Act; and

(b) in the case of a vehicle within the meaning of the Road Traffic Act 1961—as having the same meaning as in section 5(1) of that Act, and as including the operator of the vehicle within the meaning of that Act.

Safeguards for owners and alleged principal offenders are provided for in this deeming provision as are evidentiary provisions in order to maximise prospects of a successful enforcement regime under the Act whilst ensuring that the risk of convicting the wrong person is avoided. Precedents for this provision are to be found in the Road Traffic Act 1961, the Local Nuisance and Litter Control Act 2016 and the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972.

The new section does not apply to the disposal of waste or other matter by a passenger of a taxi or a train, tram, bus, ferry, passenger ship, or other public transport vehicle, that was being used for a public purpose at the time.

9—Repeal of section 5A

Section 5A is repealed as its contents have been incorporated elsewhere in the Act, namely in the definitions of pollutant, waste and environmental harm.

10—Amendment of section 10—Objects of Act

The objects of the Act are amended to expressly broaden the preconditions for taking measures under the Act. The objects, which the Minister, the Authority and all other administering agencies and persons involved in the administration of the Act must have regard to and seek to further, will now also include resource recovery aims, the application of the waste management hierarchy, promoting the circulation of materials through the waste management process and supporting strong markets for recovered resources.

11—Amendment of section 13—Functions of Authority

This amendment makes a minor adjustment to the list of functions of the Authority so that the investigation function relates also to conditions of other authorisations under the Act, for example, declarations of approved recovered resources.

12—Amendment of section 27—Nature and contents of environment protection policies

This clause makes amendments of a clarifying nature.

Codes are added to the list of documents that may be referred to or incorporated by an environment protection policy.

Discretionary powers may be given, in policies, to authorised officers and prescribed persons or bodies. These powers are similar to regulation making powers.

Subclause (4) gives legal effect to codes, standards or other documents that are referred to in a policy. In addition, the contents of section 33 of the Act are moved to the foot of section 27.

13—Amendment of section 28—Normal procedure for making policies

This amendment makes a minor typographical correction to section 28.

14—Amendment of section 32—Certain amendments may be made by Gazette notice only

This amendment adds to the list of reasons for amending environment protection policies via the fast-track method (ie by Gazette notice), where the Minister considers it necessary to amend an environment protection policy in consequence of—

an amendment to the Act or the making, variation or revocation of regulations under this Act or the making, amendment or revocation of another environment protection policy; or

the commencement or amendment of a prescribed Act.

This amendment brings this provision into line with similar provisions in the Aquaculture Act 2001 for policies made under that Act. The amendment reflects the fact that there may be new Acts or amendments that need to be reflected or addressed in an environment protection policy, and for which the lengthy consultation process is not appropriate.

15—Repeal of section 33

Section 33 is repealed as its contents have been moved to section 27(6) and (7) (see clause 12).

16—Amendment of section 42—Time limit for determination of applications

This amendment is consequential on new section 51 of the Act (see clause 19 below). It clarifies that if a person applies for a licence or other environmental authorisation for an activity for which a financial assurance is required, the time period within which the Authority must advise the applicant of its decision on the application runs from the time that the Authority receives the details prescribed by regulation in relation to that financial assurance.

17—Amendment of section 45—Conditions

The Authority is given the power to impose or vary a maximum allowable stockpile limit at any time if the Authority considers it necessary to promote the circulation of materials through the waste management process. This power complements amendments to sections 3 and 10 of the Act that deal with unauthorised stockpiling.

Further amendments are made to section 45 to fine-tune the penalty system around breaches of conditions of environmental authorisations. These amendments involve the introduction of expiation fees and default penalties. The amendments also reflect the proposed abandonment of divisional penalties under the Act and resumption of monetary penalties.

The new expiation fee structure provides that, for a particular condition prescribed by regulation, the expiation fee will be the corresponding expiation fee prescribed for that condition. For any other condition other than a reporting-deadline condition, the expiation fee will be $1,000. For a breach of a reporting-deadline condition, a default penalty of an amount prescribed by regulation may be imposed. A reporting-deadline condition is defined as a condition of a kind referred to in section 52(1)(a) of the Act requiring a specified report on the results of tests or monitoring to be made to the Authority before a specified date.

The interaction between legislation and environmental authorisations is clarified by new subsection (8). Where the Act or a statutory instrument made under the Act (eg a regulation or environment protection policy) relates to activities carried on by a person under a licence or other environmental authorisation, the Act or statutory instrument will prevail over the conditions of the licence in the event of an inconsistency in the terms, unless the Act or statutory instrument provides otherwise. This will be the case regardless of whether the licence was granted before or after the commencement of the statutory provision.

18—Amendment of section 47—Criteria for grant and conditions of environmental authorisations

These amendments give the Authority the power to refuse an application for a licence or other environmental authorisation in cases where a financial assurance under section 51 has been required by the Authority but the prescribed details in relation to that financial assurance have not yet been provided by the applicant.

19—Substitution of section 51

Section 51 is repealed and replaced with a new section (Conditions requiring financial assurance). The new section is modelled on the previous section but contains additional provisions. It gives the Authority the power to require an applicant for a licence or other environmental authorisation to provide the Authority with a financial assurance in the form of—

a bond;

a specified pecuniary sum;

a policy of insurance;

a letter of credit or a guarantee given by a bank;

any other form of security approved by the Authority.

The financial assurance may be used, realised or claimed against by the Authority for costs or expenses, or for loss or damage, incurred or suffered by the Authority or any other person in the event of—

the holder of the authorisation contravening a requirement imposed by or under this Act; or

a failure by the holder of the authorisation to take specified action within a specified period to achieve compliance with this Act.

There are several things the Authority is required to have regard to when determining whether to impose or vary a condition under this section or the nature, term or any other particulars of, a financial assurance. These are—

if there is a risk of—

environmental harm; or

unauthorised stockpiling or abandonment of waste or other matter,

associated with the activity authorised under the environmental authorisation or any activity previously undertaken at the place to which the authorisation relates—the degree of that risk;

the likelihood of action being required to make good any resulting environmental damage, to decommission, dismantle or remove stockpiled or abandoned plant or equipment or to deal with any other stockpiled or abandoned waste or other matter;

the nature and cost of such action and the length of time such action is likely to take (including following cessation of the activity so authorised);

whether the holder of the authorisation has previously contravened this Act (whether or not in connection with the activity authorised under the environmental authorisation) and if so, the nature, number and frequency of the contraventions;

the Authority's reasonable estimate of the total of the likely amounts involved in satisfaction of the purposes for which the financial assurance is required;

the depreciation of the value of the financial assurance over time;

any other matters considered relevant by the Authority or prescribed by regulation.

A financial assurance may extend to such time as the Authority is satisfied that no clean up or remediation will be required as a result of the activity (including following cessation of the activity).

The amendments detail further procedural matters relating specifically to bonds or pecuniary sums and policies of insurance.

20—Amendment of section 52A—Conditions requiring closure and post-closure plans

Dealing with stockpiled or abandoned waste or other matter is added as a reason for enabling the Authority to require, by condition of a licence, closure or post-closure plans.

21—Amendment of section 65—Interpretation

This amendment makes a minor spelling correction.

22—Amendment of section 66—Division not to apply to certain containers

This amendment makes the same spelling correction as in the previous clause.

23—Amendment of section 72—Certain containers prohibited

This amendment updates the terms 'recovery, recycling, reprocessing or reuse' in section 72 with the more widely used collective term 'resource recovery'.

24—Insertion of section 85A

New section 85A (Senior authorised officers) is inserted, providing for the appointment by the Authority of senior authorised officers for the purposes of new section 88A.

25—Amendment of section 87—Powers of authorised officers

An additional power of entry under section 87 is given to authorised officers, namely where construction, demolition, excavation or other earthworks, or any activity carried out in preparation for construction, demolition, excavation or other earthworks, is being or has been carried on at the premises and—

the works or activity has or may have disturbed, uncovered or produced waste or pollutants of a kind prescribed by regulation; or

a potentially contaminating activity of a kind prescribed by regulation has previously taken place there.

Construction is defined as including alteration or refurbishment.

26—Amendment of section 88—Warrants other than special powers warrants

This clause updates references in current section 88 from 'justice' to 'magistrate'. New subsection (9) clarifies that section 88 does not apply in relation to a special powers warrant issued under section 88A.

27—Insertion of section 88A

New section 88A (Powers of senior authorised officers to investigate illegal dumping etc) is inserted.

Senior authorised officers appointed under section 85A may obtain a special powers warrant in order to exercise certain new powers to investigate illegal dumping and other waste-related contraventions. These very specific warrants are to be issued by a judge of the Supreme Court, who will be familiar with issuing these types of warrants under current section 6 of the Listening and Surveillance Devices Act 1972 (soon to be replaced by Part 3 of the Surveillance Devices Act 2016).

A judge may only issue a special powers warrant if satisfied that—

there are reasonable grounds to believe that—

a contravention of the principal Act has been, is being, or is about to be, committed in or in relation to premises or a vehicle in relation to the handling, storage, treatment, transfer, transportation, receipt or disposal of waste or other matter; or

something may be found in premises or in or on a vehicle that constitutes or may constitute, or will or may give rise to, evidence of such a contravention; and

there are reasonable grounds for issuing the warrant, taking into account—

the extent to which the privacy of a person would be likely to be interfered with by the use of powers under the warrant; and

the gravity of the criminal conduct to which the investigation relates; and

the significance to the investigation of the information sought to be obtained; and

the likely effectiveness of the use of the powers authorised by the warrant in obtaining the information sought; and

the availability of alternative means of obtaining the information; and

any other warrants under the principal Act applied for or issued in relation to the same matter; and

any other matter that the judge considers relevant.

A special powers warrant may authorise any 1 or more of the following powers (as specified in the warrant):

the power to mark waste or other matter found in specified premises or in or on a specified vehicle or class of vehicle by—

spraying or brushing paint or any other identifying substance onto the waste or matter; or

spraying, brushing or placing microdots or similar identifying objects onto or with the waste or matter; or

placing any other identifying objects with the waste or matter,

(to enable the subsequent identification of the waste or matter at another place following its movement there); or

the power to install a camera in, on or in relation to, specified premises or a specified vehicle or class of vehicle or thing and use or maintain it or cause it to be used or maintained as so installed for a specified period; or

the power to install a GPS device in, on or in relation to a specified vehicle or class of vehicle or specified waste or matter or a specified class of waste or matter and use or maintain it or cause it to be used or maintained as so installed for a specified period; or

the power to retrieve a substance, object or equipment placed or installed, or any waste or matter marked, under a previous subparagraph.

Subject to any conditions or limitations specified in a special powers warrant—

the warrant will be taken to authorise the senior authorised officer to enter or interfere with any premises, vehicle or thing as reasonably required to exercise the powers specified in the warrant; and

the authority under the warrant to enter or interfere with any premises, vehicle or thing will be taken to include the authority—

to use reasonable force or subterfuge for that purpose; and

to take any action reasonably required in respect of the premises, vehicle or thing for the purpose of placing, installing, using, maintaining or retrieving a substance, object or equipment to which the warrant relates; and

to extract and use electricity for taking that action or for the use of the substance, object or equipment; and

the authority under the warrant to enter specified premises will be taken to include the authority—

to exercise any of the powers in sections 87(1)(c) to (m) (inclusive) and 87(6) of the principal Act in relation to the premises, vehicle or thing (subject to the requirement in section 87(7) of the principal Act); and

to exercise non-forcible passage through adjoining or nearby premises (but not through the interior of any building or structure) as reasonably required for the purpose of gaining entry to those specified premises; and

the powers conferred by the warrant may be exercised by the senior authorised officer at any time and with such assistants as the officer considers necessary.

A special powers warrant may, in urgent circumstances, be obtained by phone, fax, email or other electronic means. Considerable restrictions and procedural safeguards are included for such circumstances.

A special powers warrant may not be in force for longer than 90 days, it may be subject to such other conditions or limitations that the issuing judge thinks fit, and it may be varied or renewed on application by a senior authorised officer.

The term microdots is defined to mean identification tags etched, coded or marked with unique identifiers (including identifiers that are discernible only on viewing under magnification). The inclusion of this term in the principal Act reflects the expected use of this technology in tracking the movement of waste and other matter.

28—Amendment of section 93—Environment protection orders

These amendments complement the amendments of section 45 (see clause 17) by applying a default penalty for continuing breaches of licence conditions (or conditions of other environmental authorisations). Where a person has expiated an offence under section 93(8) of failing to comply with an environment protection order that imposes a requirement to secure compliance with a condition of the licence or other environmental authorisation, but the act or omission continues after that expiation, a default penalty of one-fifth of the expiation fee is payable for each day on which the act or omission continues.

29—Amendment of section 93A—Environment protection orders relating to cessation of activity

These amendments complement the amendments to section 52A. Dealing with stockpiled or abandoned waste or other matter is added as a reason for enabling the Authority to issue environment protection orders after a licensed activity has ceased.

30—Amendment of section 119—False or misleading information

These amendments insert a higher offence for making a false or misleading statement knowing it was false or misleading.

31—Amendment of section 139—Evidentiary

These amendments include evidentiary provisions to facilitate proof of offences.

32—Amendment of section 140—Regulations

These amendments clarify and bolster various regulation making powers. The maximum penalties and expiation fees set by regulation are increased, namely to $10,000 and $1,000 respectively.

The power to incorporate or refer to codes, standards or other documents in regulations is included. Legal effect is given to codes, standards or other documents that are referred to in the regulations.

Discretionary powers may be given, in the regulations, to authorised officers and prescribed persons or bodies. These powers are similar to the provisions in section 27 of the Act for environment protection policies and are standard provisions in regulation-making powers in many other Acts across the statute book.

Schedule 1—Related amendments

Part 1—Preliminary

1—Amendment provisions

This clause is formal.

Part 2—Amendment of Motor Vehicles Act 1959

2—Amendment of section 139D—Confidentiality

This clause makes a consequential amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act 1959.

Schedule 2—Further amendment of Environment Protection Act 1993—penalty provisions

This Schedule converts the divisional penalties in the Act to monetary penalties.

Mr SPEIRS (Bright) (21:13): I am going to talk briefly as the lead speaker. It is a pleasure this evening to be able to speak quite briefly, I hope, on the Environment Protection (Waste Reform) Amendment Bill 2017. This is a piece of legislation that has really been driven by the sector in collaboration with the government. There is no doubt that there is a requirement for legislation to be updated when it comes to waste management. South Australia has a proud history, a history we can be proud of in a bipartisan sense, when it comes to waste management.

Often, when we talk about waste management in this state we talk about our pioneering role in container deposit legislation and, in more recent times, the outlawing of plastic bags being used for day-to-day shopping. Those are stand-out items, but we know that in South Australia we have been at the forefront of many other waste reform legislative matters and reform matters over several decades, initiating the container deposit legislation I think around 40 years ago, and in more recent times a whole range of waste management initiatives. I remember several years ago there was the move towards zero waste, a very aspirational goal. With this legislation, we see an aim to really professionalise waste management, and the waste management industry in particular, in South Australia.

The bill has been a long time in the making, with waste management operators, particularly larger organisations, calling for its development and implementation for some years. It is certainly the view of industry leaders that I have liaised with as I have consulted on this bill that the legislation will professionalise the industry. It will lift the industry in a strategic sense and it will get policy in place that will allow the industry to grow, to become more sophisticated and to continue to lead Australia, if not the world, in some aspects of waste management. That is what the bill that is before the house tonight seeks to do.

There are a couple of items that I want to draw particular attention to with regard to this bill, things that I think need to be put on the public record. I have no intention of amending the bill or moving to committee stage tonight. I think the legislation is, as I have said, necessary legislation and fairly good legislation, but I do think it is worth spending a moment putting on the record that when you professionalise an industry and seek to lift standards within an industry, you can negatively impact operators who might not have that level of sophistication because of their size or because of their geographical location.

I would take the opportunity to ask the government when it comes to the implementation of this legislation that there be a real focus on providing support, particularly for smaller regional operators to have the opportunity and also the support to come on board with this legislation and perhaps even have exemptions along the way from some aspects of it. That can obviously be done through regulation that will ensure that for those smaller operators and geographically isolated towns in South Australia, which may have small FTE counts and small annual turnovers, the impost of meeting the requirements of this new legislation is not such that it calls into question the overall viability of those organisations.

I had the opportunity a few weeks ago to visit the West Coast in my shadow ministerial role, as a guest of the member for Flinders, and actually met with one of the operators, who is hoping to be able to do the right thing but does feel that some aspects of this legislation might be difficult for smaller regional operators to fulfil effectively. I am asking the government to take those into consideration when putting this bill into practice and to particularly consider whether regulation is needed that will provide that extra support to smaller operators.

Two of the key areas that I want to dwell on in that regard are the reforms around stockpiling in this legislation and the reforms around financial assurances that will be placed on the industry. Firstly, I want to mention the amendment to section 45 of the act, where authority is given to the power, which in this case is obviously the EPA, to impose or vary a maximum allowable stockpile limit at any time it deems necessary to promote the circulation of materials through the waste management process.

We know that stockpiling can become a problem when it comes to waste management. I have asked the environment minister a few questions on this matter but have not always had clear answers as to the extent of the problem of stockpiling in South Australia. We know that from time to time certain products within the waste stream do build up. There may not be a recycling option for them, or perhaps not a cost-effective one.

Rather than being sent to recycling and re-used, they are stockpiled in warehouses and other facilities across the state. It is acknowledged that that is not ideal. It is not good for the industry and it is not good for consumer and customer confidence in waste management. People are putting things in their bins—in my case, it is a yellow bin in the City of Holdfast Bay—expecting it to go to recycling and re-use but, in fact, sometimes it ends up in stockpiling.

The government's legislation is seeking to provide authority to limit stockpiling when the authority deems that those stockpiles are in place for particular items and categories within the waste stream. I am supportive of that. I think that is certainly good across the waste management sector in general, but I do have some concerns, and these have been repeated to me by regional operators. There is a possibility that it might be an onerous requirement for smaller operators, again because of geographic isolation and perhaps having to travel down to the city in order to move on some of those stockpiles.

I do not think that the legislation intends to capture stockpiles that are that small in regional areas. It is probably the case that the intent behind the legislation is that it is only very large stockpiles that would be captured by such a power, and the EPA would probably not be interested in those smaller stockpiles in regional areas. However, regional operators have indicated that they have concerns, so I would like to put on the record and ask that the government take that into consideration. They might want to look at an exemption or a different control mechanism for organisations and operators that have a turnover of less than a certain dollar figure on an annual basis or perhaps a certain level of employment, an FTE count, for example.

That is the issue of stockpiling. As I say, we support it, but we would like the government to take into consideration the regional impact. The second situation is similar in terms of my concerns, and that is the substitution of section 51, being repealed and replaced with a new section entitled 'Conditions requiring financial insurance'. It gives the authority the power to require an applicant for a licence or other environmental authorisation to provide the authority with a financial insurance (which could be a bond), a policy of insurance or a letter of credit.

In the event that the holder of the authorisation fails to comply with the act, the authority is then required to have several things taken into consideration when determining whether to impose or vary a condition, including if there is a risk of environmental harm. That is all captured in this amended section. This is necessary for professionalisation and to ensure that we get an increasingly sophisticated and world-leading industry here in South Australia, which, as I said earlier, we are well on the way to achieving.

However, it might be worthwhile the government considering the level of those financial assurances that are required for small operators—again, whether there would be a scaled number of thresholds depending on the size, whether that be the financial turnover or the FTE count or even the geographical location of some of these operators in regional South Australia. I do not have a great problem with the idea of having those financial assurances put in place. It is important to hold waste management operators to account and to make sure that they are doing the right thing and complying with the various licences they have to deal with waste. They can make a lot of money out of waste. We know that waste is a very valuable commodity in 2017 and there is much that can be done with it.

But we also need to make sure that organisations are doing the right thing, and the provision of bonds and other financial assurances are no doubt necessary reforms which this legislation achieves but which could have unanticipated consequences for smaller operators. Again, I ask the government to take that into consideration when they get to the implementation stage. Those are really the two main reform issues in this bill overall—the issue of stockpiling and the issue of financial assurances. There are other extensions of powers for authorised officers under the act to enter properties and to undertake investigations, and those are issues that I am more than happy to commend to the house and support.

In closing, I would like to thank those in the waste management industry who have worked with me and spoken to me over the last few weeks when we have looked at this bill. There is no doubt this is legislation which many of the professional operators in the industry are looking for. They are pleased to see it. The legislation will give them certainty, and certainty is a good thing when it comes to doing business and expanding business. South Australia remains, I believe, a significant player when it comes to innovation in waste management. This legislation will help take that to the next level. I commend the bill to the house.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (21:26): I rise to speak to the Environment Waste (Protection Reforms) Amendment Bill 2017. Waste management has come a significant way forward just in my lifetime. In a small country town like Coomandook I can show people—and they may see it when they drive through to Melbourne—that there is a small patch in the scrub line right next to the highway that used to be a local rubble road before the road was directed from Tailem Bend through Cooke Plains to Coomandook. Anyway, there is a patch right next to the highway that was the Coomandook dump. I can tell exactly where it was because there is nothing growing there but weeds.

Way back in the day growing up, that is where you drove. It was a local council road back then because the highway turned at Coomandook on the infamous Coomandook corner, which claimed more than a few trucks. It went out to Moorlands and then you did a sharp left to Tailem Bend, getting on the Mallee Highway. That was used for many years. Down the track there is a new dump site, which was called the Yumali dump site, not far from my property, off the Sherlock Road in Yumali. It just had pits, and you would put all your refuse in there, and when it got full the council would just light it up. Those pits would last for decades sometimes, depending on how many people were delivering rubbish.

Obviously, things break down over time but things may not be combustible in the first instance when you light everything up. It did dry out and became combustible later on. Things have moved on a long way from there. Currently, in the local area we have a lot of these dump sites that have turned into waste transfer stations where you will have a squat of SULO bins where rubbish will go into some and larger rubbish will be designated to an area, and in some places some of this has disappeared over time. I can remember at Coonalpyn there was a site where the bigger loads of rubbish would be buried as landfill, and that still happens in places around the state. Certainly, there are issues like lead acid batteries that have been kept; you can take them for recycling. You can take used oil for recycling purposes, and things have really moved on.

In recent years, I note that the Coorong District Council has put on a service—mind you, you pay for it—a triple bin service where you have a rubbish bin, a recycling bin and a green bin. Being on the land, I have never put out the green bin. I think it costs something like $325 a year. It is a service that I think is contracted out now to a waste recovery firm. They have a truck exactly the same as you see going around the City of Adelaide that drives past the back of the property and picks up your rubbish. Yes, you pay for it one way or the other. Some councils do it through rates, but this is a fee-for-service opportunity.

I note that the Coorong District Council is about to go out to a consultation phase to see if they can deliver bins everywhere in the community. By that, I mean every property owner over at least 1,600 kilometres of rubble local roads. They are suffering a bit through lack of maintenance in many places. I wonder how sustainable that will be if it goes ahead, but that is for the council to deal with. I know some people are not happy about it.

There is something about waste that we all have to be aware of: if you make it too easy it can be a problem and if you make it too hard then waste can be a problem. Several years ago, the Rural City of Murray Bridge put in big skips, huge rubbish bins that need a truck to pick them up, which you see on building sites and through the city and in country areas. They had designated sites because they thought it would be good to get waste collected. Guess what happened? I guess people overused or abused the system. The skips soon filled up, rubbish was dumped around them and it became too hard to manage. They basically became stockpile sites, and the only way to regulate them was to pull them out and work out another way of dealing with the issue.

The licensing of dump sites has probably become dearer now, but I think the Hartley dump in the Rural City of Murray Bridge is where it has its waste repository area now. Even though they are quite heavily clay and rubble-lined pits when you dig them, under the rules and regulations they have to spend about $100,000 per pit to line them again. That comes at a cost to the ratepayer. Some people deem that it is over the top, but it is under the regulation so it has to be done.

A few years ago, when I was on holiday one summer down near Geelong, I was talking to some people from Sunshine in Victoria who were holidaying there as well. They said, 'When you throw a mattress out in Sunshine, you just take it down the street somewhere and throw it out.' Their thinking was, 'As long as you don't get caught,' because the issue was that for every mattress that they wanted to dump legally there was a $100 fee, which was an instant disincentive for those people to do the right thing. I am not saying that is what they should do, but it was an interesting observation that that is what they did because it was too expensive.

I understand that we have come a long way and that recycling is a fantastic thing, whether you are recycling soft drink cans, milk cartons, orange juice cartons, wine bottles or whatever. It is a great thing, and we have that access down at the Coorong and I have access at my Adelaide house when parliament is sitting. There are people who want the 10¢ from our deposit scheme, and plenty of operators will take cans and bottles if you collect them and deliver them. Coming from the farming sector, many people, as I do, have wool packs in sheds that they fill up with cans and bottles, or you might use a 44-gallon drum to put beer or wine bottles in. You tie them onto your trailer or ute and take them up and get the appropriate money, and it is quite handy. You might only have to do it every couple of years, but it is quite handy and it is doing the right thing.

I note that in this bill they are managing stockpiling and also that there are some issues around the financial assurance. There are concerns about whether or not this will put small waste operators out of business in regional areas. Waste has become an industry over time. I remember, when I went overseas, looking at the storage of nuclear waste, and we took a senior person from Veolia with us —fascinating conversation about how you manage all sorts of waste. He was certainly on the trip to see if there was going to be a part to play for their company in regard to the storing of nuclear waste. So people are looking at all angles. We know that asbestos has to be managed appropriately. As I said before, so many items can be recycled, which is a great thing, because it does seem pointless to just keep digging holes and putting it in.

Certainly, then, on this side of the house we are supportive of the bill. I note that it gives significant extra powers to inspectors and authorised officers, but as I said the one overriding issue I have with anything to do with waste management is that if you make it too hard, too expensive, people will find a way out. It would not matter what penalty you put on it; they will take the risk. That is just human nature. It is not right—I am not saying it is right—but it is human nature. You have to find an equitable outcome so that you can convince people that they must do the right thing, not just for the benefit of their community but for their state and for the country and essentially for the world into the future. With those few remarks I commend the bill, and I will be interested in the debate as we progress.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister to—oh, the member for Flinders is going to say something.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (21:37): A brief but important contribution. It gives me pleasure to rise this evening to speak on this debate, but what an act to follow from the member for Hammond! A broad-ranging contribution that included a mention of his holiday to Victoria, it was wonderfully well put together, a well-crafted contribution I think.

This bill has been a long time coming—in the making—with large waste management operators calling for its development and implementation for some years, and there is the crux of the problem for a constituent in my electorate. In the view of large operators and that of the government, the improved legislation will professionalise the industry. The government's process for legislation began in March 2015, when minister Hunter convened a waste summit, which was followed by the release of a discussion paper and further stakeholder workshops taking place through 2015. The government's Environment Protection (Waste Reform) Amendment Bill intends to further their waste reduction strategy.

Of particular note within the discussion paper and through the consultation process was the focus on improving stockpile controls and the tracking of waste material; once again we will be having an impact on smaller operators in regional areas. The bill also intends to uphold the polluter-pays principle, holding relevant operators responsible for costs arising from their operations rather than having local or state government or landowners bearing these costs. Well, the community is suffering from the very consequences of non-action.

Waste disposal is of interest to me. I have always been concerned about the environment, and I am one who believes that possibly the greatest invention of modern man is the wheelie bin. You put your rubbish in it, and somebody comes and takes it away. It is an extraordinary thing, in these days of green waste and hard waste and household waste, all segregated, and those recyclables. Of course, the shadow minister mentioned that South Australia was at the forefront of recycling drink containers particularly. In fact, I know a young man—he is probably in his 20s now—who actually bought his first car as a result of—

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr TRELOAR: Yes, as a result of recycling drink cans. So not only is it good for the environment but it can also be economically worthwhile for the individual.

I was visited by a constituent—in fact, the shadow minister was in Port Lincoln and sat in on this meeting with a small, local operator on Lower Eyre Peninsula—who had great concerns about how this legislation might impact him as an operator. One of the things he talked about was the cost of the increased red tape to him as a small operator. Also of concern to him was the EPA shutting down the pond in Port Lincoln, which means that all grease trap, trade waste, etc., now has to go to Dublin, near Adelaide.

For this particular operator, as well as other waste products out of Port Lincoln, it is about 30,000 litres of water a week that has to be transported on a 1,200-kilometre round trip from Port Lincoln. Of course, he questioned the cost effectiveness of this, but also the impact that freight has on the environment overall. He would like to know the opportunities or the possibilities of being able to process the grease on Eyre Peninsula in Port Lincoln—and I suspect other country areas would have the same questions. Unfortunately, in his mind the EPA is making that nearly impossible, and it is only getting more difficult with the extra compliance the new bill is bringing in.

The shadow minister talked about the stockpiling of waste, the distances involved to outlying regions and the cost that will put on operators. In essence, he is concerned about his future. He is competing against large nationwide or multinational operators, and I feel it is important to put his concerns on the record. I do hope that the minister, in her closing remarks, rather than going into committee might be able to address some of these problems.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Minister for Education and Child Development, Minister for Higher Education and Skills) (21:42): I am delighted to give the second reading speech in reply and thank all those who have made contributions. I note that the concerns and questions they have raised are very sincere reflections of issues that have been raised by their constituents and by some members of the industry. Nonetheless, I thank them very sincerely for support, ultimately, for this bill.

I would also like to thank the crossbench in the other place for their constructive engagement with this bill, through briefings with minister Hunter's office and the EPA, and for their support for the legislation. I would also like to thank key industry stakeholders, who have shown a strong degree of support for the rapid pursuit of the Environment Protection (Waste Reform) Amendment Bill and subsequent reforms.

This bill has been developed in consultation with industry over the last two years. It contains numerous reforms that will provide the necessary underpinning to enable the EPA to implement important waste reforms as well as providing improved tools for dealing with excessive stockpiling, waste levy avoidance, illegal dumping and contraventions of the Environment Protection Act. The bill supports the economic and environmental health benefits that we want for our state. The state government wants to unlock future potential and drive innovation in the waste management and resource recovery sector that is already a billion-dollar industry for our state, employing nearly 5,000 people.

We seek to continue to lead the way in demonstrating that we can both protect our environment and support businesses and jobs growth at the same time. This bill will empower the EPA to reduce excessive stockpiling and to effectively regulate the flow of materials in the waste and resource recovery industry so that material will move to recycling or landfill faster, with a levy becoming payable for the disposed waste. This will assist with the more timely application of the levy in practice and promote fairness and certainty for operators.

In closing the second reading contributions, I address some of the matters that have been raised during consideration of the bill. As part of this, the bill proposes to expand the circumstances in which financial assurance and stockpiling conditions may be imposed by the EPA to cater for abandonment and material flow risks that can pose commercial burdens on our community, in addition to environmental harm risks. The EPA will be developing guidelines for the use of these stockpiling powers and also financial assurances.

The EPA will consult with key stakeholders, including regional and local government and regional operators in the community, when reviewing and setting the circumstances under which the EPA will amend a licence condition in order to set new stockpile limits for particular waste types. In the absence of a guiding policy, the EPA has made relatively limited use of its existing powers to impose financial assurances in recent years and holds financial assurances from very few licensees. The current assurance requirements range from about $50,000 to just over $1 million, with varying site circumstances.

The EPA intends, along with the proposed amendments in the bill, to develop a policy to help guide and support the use of financial assurances to achieve better environmental outcomes and maintain regulatory control, most particularly in the waste sector. This is similar to the approach taken in various other states. The magnitude of assurances will reflect the potential risks associated with the site. The bill also envisages the need for new regulations for matters such as approved recovered resource assessments.

Building on early engagement processes, these intended policies and regulations will be developed by the EPA in a staged consultative manner with the community and stakeholders, including relevant small businesses and small business representatives, regional businesses and also local government, together with input from the EPA's regular stakeholder engagement groups, comprising representatives from the waste industry, local government, the Conservation Council, Keep South Australia Beautiful and Green Industries SA.

As part of these consultation processes, the EPA will be ensuring that small and regional local government and business views are considered, including for reasonable adjustment times where stockpiling controls are needed. In many cases it can be considered that stockpile controls or financial assurances will be irrelevant for small operators.

The bill will also strengthen the EPA's powers to successfully prosecute illegal dumping, helping return waste to the lawful sector and enabling levy moneys for disposal to be recovered. The powers will provide the EPA with better tools to tackle commercial level and hazardous illegal dumping, including asbestos, whether occurring on the roadside, the ocean, parks or other land.

EPA investigators periodically become aware of circumstances where material is likely to be illegally dumped; for example, asbestos-containing buildings that are being demolished at exceptionally cheap prices, that is, unlikely to support lawful disposal costs, or allegations about a given business dumping waste materials into the ocean. EPA investigators have found that they are restricted by the current legislation when trying to carry out proactive work, as the legislation has not been worded to allow this type of investigation.

The objective of the amendments proposed in the bill is to provide authorised officers with the power to enter premises if something may be found in the premises that may be used in illegal dumping and to allow the marking of something that an authorised officer reasonably suspects may give rise to evidence of a contravention of the Environment Protection Act. These new powers will enable the EPA to better utilise identification and tracking technology to combat illegal dumping practices and reduce the significant risk and cost of illegal dumping to the environment, government, private owners and public health and safety, particularly when hazardous chemicals or asbestos are involved. They will build on changes already made by our government to support sound disposal practices, such as the removal of the levy on packaged asbestos waste.

I again thank the waste and resource recovery sector for their strong support for the bill and associated reforms that are being pursued. The bill will introduce the framework to support additional waste reforms to support both fairness and certainty within the industry and also to protect the environment. In conclusion, I look forward to the implementation of the reforms to support the South Australian government in continuing to lead the way in waste management and resource recovery. I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Minister for Education and Child Development, Minister for Higher Education and Skills) (21:49): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

Sitting extended beyond 22:00 on motion of Hon. S.E. Close.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT