HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2020-09-08 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

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

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 23 July 2020.)

Clause 1.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Parnell–4]—

Page 2, line 4 [clause 1]—Delete 'and Other Plastic' and substitute:

Plastic and Other

I will make just some general remarks. The main questions I had at clause 1 I did ask before the winter break. I will occupy a bit of time until we wait for the advisors to get here, if we start getting into more technical issues. What I will outline now is that I emailed members earlier today to assist in understanding the four sets of amendments that I had filed.

I appreciate that, whilst this is not the most complex bill we have ever dealt with, having four sets of amendments, many of which appeared to have double-ups or were very similar, can be confusing. I have given the advice to the clerks as well. The advice is that, of the four sets of amendments I have filed, sets 1 and 2 you can dispose of and we will just go with sets 3 and 4.

In relation to my set 4, the very first amendment is to clause 1. The amendment to clause 1 is very simple. It just replaces the words 'and Other Plastic' and substitutes 'Plastic and Other'. That might appear to be not at all important or significant. Parliamentary counsel will tell me if I have misremembered the reason for that, but my memory is that this was an important amendment because I have a subsequent amendment to ban the release of helium-filled balloons.

Helium-filled balloons obviously come in different types. We are familiar with the latex balloons. Many of them contain other chemicals as well. There are some helium-filled balloons that contain plastic, and there are some helium balloons that are effectively metallic. You see those shiny, metal-looking ones with 'Happy 21st' or whatever written on them.

Having incorporated the issue of balloon release into this bill, it was also seen as appropriate to amend the words 'and Other Plastic' and replace them with 'Plastic and Other'. There is another amendment later on, I think, to the long title of the bill as well.

I am in the chamber's hands, and yours, Mr Chairman, but because this is consequential on a subsequent amendment that relates to banning balloon releases, we might take this as the opportunity to test that issue—balloon releases. Whilst I am moving amendment No. 1 standing in my name, I am talking to amendment No. 3 [Parnell-4], which is the creation of a new clause 12A. That clause seeks to ban helium-filled balloons.

I did take the opportunity over the winter break to consult with the opposition, to see if I could get them over the line in supporting this particular amendment. There were two changes, ultimately, that I made. One was to make sure that we could have an exemption provision, so that the Bureau of Meteorology officers were not put in handcuffs and dragged away for releasing a weather balloon. My understanding is that they like to get their balloons back because they have valuable equipment attached.

There is a general exemption—that might have even been in the first draft—but more recently I have added the words 'intentionally or recklessly'. In other words, the new offence now reads:

A person must not intentionally or recklessly cause or permit the release into the open of a helium-filled balloon.

The addition of those words 'intentionally or recklessly' makes it clear that this is no longer a strict liability offence. There is a level of mens rea, to use the Latin involved. It means that the person accidentally releases the balloon. I was going to say a small child, but small children cannot commit offences. Let's say an older child accidentally lets go of the string.

I have had a staff member of a member of parliament confess to me, very recently, that one of their children accidentally let go of the string. These things happen. Similarly, if a piece of rubbish falls out of your pocket, you do not get done for littering, unless there was some level of either recklessness or deliberate behaviour involved. We do not do that to people. We do not ping them for something that really does not involve fault.

I put balloons in that category. It has to be a reckless or intentional release. What I will say, without repeating things I said in my second reading speech, is that I would actually be quite surprised if we ever see another mass balloon release in South Australia at a big organised event. I could be wrong; I hope I am not. I went back and had a look at when was the last time the AFL grand final released balloons en masse. It was not actually that easy. Dr Google is quite good, but not that good.

I did find the video of the 1980 grand final in Melbourne, when thousands of balloons were released and the commentators were saying what a glory it was and how wonderful that the balloons in the team colours were released. I do not recall seeing that at an AFL match or another big sporting event in recent times. I am hoping that the mass release of balloons is a form of celebration that has had its day and that we will not see again. It has been banned in other places.

I had a look online earlier at some of the places that still do like to release balloons. Funerals is one. We want to remember the departed, especially if it is a child, and often people want to release balloons. The Funeral Celebrants Association Australia has a guideline under the heading 'Balloon releases at services' and their advice to the bereaved is:

Releasing balloons at Funeral or Memorial Services is discouraged and may be illegal, pending on your state or territory. Please consider other environmentally friendly tributes for your loved ones.

They then point out a 2016 CSIRO study, which identified balloons among the top three most harmful pollutants threatening marine wildlife, along with plastic bags and bottles.

I hope we will not see them. Some local councils in South Australia have banned balloon releases, so it struck me that in this bill it was timely to put the ban into law. I know there was some talk that we could do what they do in other states and say, 'Well, as long as it's less than 20,' but I have to say that as a Greens member of parliament, signing off on 19 balloons being released deliberately is 19 too many. I did not want to go down that path.

The amendment I have moved is very simple—it just changes a few words around—but this is a test, if you like, for the more substantial amendment which follows, amendment No. 3 in set 4, which is a ban on helium-filled balloons. Like I have said, it is no longer a strict liability offence because of the changes I have made to it, and there is an exemption provision to make sure that scientific experiments or meteorological work is not impeded.

I will say that of all the amendments that are in this bill, this is one that is very important to us, and I will be dividing on the matter of balloons.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The government is not supporting this amendment. I take the honourable member's point that this is a bit of a test clause for him in terms of the further amendments to this legislation regarding helium-filled balloons. I also concur with his remarks in terms of—I think we will see less and less of these events going forward, now that the environmental harm is much better understood. I think the last time I went to an event where there were balloons released was the Homelessness Week event that we have in Victoria Square. It was not this year or last year; I think it was the year before when we released balloons, and that practice has now ceased. It has been replaced with pinwheels, I guess you would call them, and—

An honourable member: Bubbles.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Yes, bubbles. Kids' bubbles, for want of a better word. There is probably an official name for it. So I think in terms of the harm he is seeking to avert, people are becoming better understanding of the environmental harm and doing it voluntarily.

So to the script: this amendment adds a new part to the legislation to create an offence for the release of helium-filled balloons. If we are debating his subsequent amendments as well—so this applies to the set of amendments, if you like—the amendment applies an expiation fee as well as a maximum penalty for offences under this part. It also contains regulation-making powers to exempt a person or product—helium-filled balloon—from the operation of the clause.

The government is aware that some states and local governments have introduced their own balloon-release bans, including where the offence relates to the number of balloons released. The government notes that the Hon. Mr Parnell has revised his amendment to clarify the offence relates to intentionally or recklessly releasing a helium-filled balloon; however, the government does not consider this legislation to be the appropriate mechanism to prevent litter associated with the release of helium-filled balloons. The provisions of the Local Nuisance and Litter Control Act 2016 can be applied to littering of balloons to land and water. Enforcement action, including fines of $5,000 or an expiation fee of $210, apply if it can be proven that the balloons ended up as litter.

Introduction of a ban on the release of helium-filled balloons in this bill would mean that the social and economic impacts of such a reform would not be assessed. Community and stakeholder consultation is required to understand the consequences of such a ban on the community. In the event that, following consultation and impact analysis, it was recommended to ban the release of helium-filled balloons, the preferred approach would be to draft regulations to amend schedule 1 of the Local Nuisance and Litter Control Act 2016 to declare the release of helium balloons subject to appropriate conditions or limits as a form of local nuisance.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I rise to indicate that, although we have some sympathy with the intent of what the Hon. Mark Parnell is trying to do, we will not be supporting the amendments on this occasion. The opposition believes that the expectations of industry, following the government consultation process, makes it difficult to support these amendments, but the opposition indicates it will support separate amendments requiring the feasibility of these products being added to the list of prohibited products upon the first annual report.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I am disappointed that neither of the major parties sees fit to support this amendment at this time, although I am yet to meet anyone in either party who actually thinks balloon releases are a good idea, so I understand that they are talking about the processes and consultation. I will say that the actual movement Australia-wide and worldwide to ban balloon releases has been many years in the making and I do not expect that there would be a single child who does not understand what the impacts of balloons are, in the marine environment in particular.

The Hon. Michelle Lensink referred to the fact that you could deal with this under litter laws. When you think about it, by definition, releasing balloons cannot be anything other than litter, unless you retrieve them all. I am not aware of anyone ever having retrieved all of the balloons. The physics involved, as I understand it, is that they can rise very high in the sky. My physics and chemistry start to fail me, but I think there is an expansion process at higher altitudes. The balloons eventually burst and they fall back down to earth, and I am not aware of anyone collecting them. Therefore, by definition, whether they end up in a city, a street, a suburb, a garden, the ocean or anywhere, they are litter.

I am not aware of anyone having been pinged for littering on the basis of balloon release. Nevertheless, I understand the minister is saying that there are other approaches. There has not been any commitment on the part of the government or anyone else to introduce such an approach but I accept that it is possible. This is an important issue, certainly for my constituents, so whilst I am aware of the numbers, this is something where we want to get everyone on the record. Which side do they stand on about whether this outdated and environmentally harmful practice is going to potentially continue into the future in South Australia?

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I indicate that I will not be supporting the Greens amendment on this occasion.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I indicate that SA-Best will be supporting the Hon. Mark Parnell on this amendment.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 4

Noes 17

Majority 13

AYES
Bonaros, C. Franks, T.A. Pangallo, F.
Parnell, M.C. (teller)
NOES
Bourke, E.S. Centofanti, N.J. Darley, J.A.
Hanson, J.E. Hood, D.G.E. Hunter, I.K.
Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A. (teller) Lucas, R.I.
Maher, K.J. Ngo, T.T. Pnevmatikos, I.
Ridgway, D.W. Scriven, C.M. Stephens, T.J.
Wade, S.G. Wortley, R.P.

Amendment thus negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 5 passed.

Clause 6.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Parnell–4]—

Page 3, after line 29 [clause 6(1)]—After paragraph (c) insert:

(ca) a single-use cup comprised wholly of plastic;

(cb) a single-use plastic bowl;

(cc) a single-use plastic plate;

(cd) the plastic lid of a single-use coffee cup;

(ce) a plastic balloon stick;

(cf) a plastic balloon tie;

(cg) a plastic-stemmed cotton bud;

I have previously explained the purpose of this amendment, which is basically to add to the list of banned plastic products some things that were featured in the consultation and were popularly supported in the community but never found their way into the final list. To give a simple example, the government's bill bans plastic cutlery but not the plastic 'crockery', if I can use that word—in other words, it bans a plastic spoon but not a plastic bowl, it plans a plastic fork but not a plastic plate and it bans the plastic knife but not any of the other plastic crockery.

I know there was an issue in relation to plastic cups, because the definition in the act says that if it has any plastic in it at all it is covered, so I do appreciate that coffee cups are in the government's too-hard basket for now. I am sure everyone here has had a take-away coffee at some point, when you have forgotten your keep cup for example. It is often a corrugated cardboard, basically to stop your hand burning, but they often have a thin plastic lining on them as well. There are various others that do not have any plastic, but they are in the minority.

In the course of drafting these amendments, I did change my proposed prohibition on plastic cups to make sure that it was only single-use cups comprised wholly of plastic. In other words, I accepted that the coffee cups would be in the too-hard basket for now and that we would do them another day.

The other things that I have on this list are things that the European Union has agreed to ban, so there will be many millions of people in Europe who will be subject to these laws, either recently or very soon. I am not sure what the commencement date was. As well as the plastic cups, plates and bowls, we also have the plastic lids of coffee cups, which are generally made entirely of plastic—they do not have to be; they can be made of corn starch or other material—plastic balloon sticks, plastic balloon ties and plastic-stemmed cotton buds. The rest of the world has got with the program and I think South Australia can as well.

I understand that this amendment does not have the support of the opposition either. I will not be dividing on this. Plan B was to make sure that this list, if it is not going to be banned today, at least gets put in the priority list for the next iteration of amendments to this bill. We do that via the annual report to the minister, so we will make it clear that these items, if we are not to ban them today, will be first cab off the rank for inquiry when the minister reports to parliament on the state of single-use plastics in South Australia. I think it is a worthwhile amendment so I would urge members to support it.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Prior to the winter recess I think we did canvass these issues but I will just quickly try to sketch over them again. At that stage we discussed those matters. I note that the honourable member would like to see other products included in the bill. Feedback on the discussion paper also proposed a range of other products for attention, some of which have already been flagged by the Minister for Environment and Water for consideration. The government has identified the initial products within the bill as a starting point to phase out those items, and we acknowledge the member's comments about bowls, plates, cups, etc.

In consideration of the impact to business, the government considers that it will be easier for businesses to transition a smaller number of products in the first group of prohibited items, and that is why the government has also committed to a delayed commencement for the prohibition of the expanded polystyrene products listed in the bill, as well as oxo-degradable plastics.

The government's intention is to pass legislation that prohibits the initial plastic products while also establishing a framework for adding other products in the future. This is in keeping with community support for action on single-use plastic products and is also cognisant of businesses that will be required to transition to alternative products. It also helped focus the attention of the single-use plastic stakeholder task force to these items and the exemptions that will be required to support implementation.

The government did not want to delay the passage or commencement of the legislation by including a large initial list, which is also likely to add further levels of complexity, such as recyclability. That can be considered through the consultation process outlined in clause 6(2). It is certainly the government's intention, which I understand the Minister for Environment and Water has communicated, to consider other products for inclusion in the legislation.

The government will be supporting another of the member's amendments regarding annual reporting under the act, which lists products that must be considered for inclusion in the definition of prohibited plastic products in the initial annual report. This effectively requires the government to consider the honourable member's list of products for inclusion in the legislation within one year after commencement.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The honourable member has correctly stated the position of the opposition, so I thank him for stating our position. We will not be supporting this amendment but, like the government, will be supporting the inclusion in the annual report. I have a question for the government on clause 6, if I might: does the ban on single-use plastic straws include those attached to some milk cartons or juice boxes?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The advice I have received is no, they are not part of the initial ban.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can I indicate that as a matter of principle we support where the Hon. Mark Parnell is coming from with this amendment. However, we have had ongoing discussions with the minister about this and I can say that I am confident in this case that the minister is genuine in his desire to transition these changes. I note that in my discussions with him there were other items that he thought ought to be included on that list which are not included on that list, and wanted to deal with this in the least complex way possible.

I have no doubt that is his genuine intention. The list is not exhaustive—that is what we want. We want items to be added to that list by regulation. We are confident that will be the case. If it is not the case then obviously we can take it up again with the government but, just for the record, we will also be supporting the Hon. Mark Parnell's amendments that relate to the annual reporting requirements and consideration of those further items in that context. While we support the position in principle, we share some of the minister's concerns in terms of the complexities and look forward to further developments in this space and an extension of that list in due course.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 7 to 12 passed.

The CHAIR: Just to check on amendment No. 3 [Parnell-4], the Hon. Mr Parnell, do you want to comment?

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: No, only to say that we canvassed the issue of helium-filled balloons in amendment No. 1. My amendment No. 3 is the substantive clause. I did actually refer to it, so what it says is on the record. I will not be moving it.

Clause 13 passed.

New clause 13A.

The CHAIR: We have two proposed amendments, one in the name of the Hon. Mr Maher and the other in the name of the Hon. Mr Parnell, to insert a new clause 13A.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Parnell–3]—

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

13A—Annual report by Minister

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

(a) information regarding the extent to which the Act has achieved the objects set out in section 5;

(b) information regarding consideration given to including additional plastic products within the ambit of the definition of prohibited plastic product by regulation pursuant to section 6(1)(h);

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

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

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

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

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

(f) the Authority's assessment of the impact of any exemption granted under this Act on the goal of reducing single-use plastics in this State.

(2) The initial report prepared under subsection (1) must include information regarding consideration given to including the following additional plastic products within the ambit of the definition of prohibited plastic product by regulation pursuant to section 6(1)(h):

(a) single-use plastic cups (including coffee cups);

(b) single-use plastic food containers;

(c) single-use plastic bowls;

(d) single-use plastic plates;

(e) plastic lids of single-use coffee cups;

(f) plastic balloon sticks;

(g) plastic balloon ties;

(h) plastic-stemmed cotton buds;

(i) plastic bags.

(3) The Minister must, within 12 sitting days after completing the report under subsection (1), cause copies of the report to be laid before both Houses of Parliament and published on a website determined by the Minister.

This is one of those clauses that has gone backwards and forwards a few times and there are a few versions floating around. My understanding is that because of the overlap between my clause and the Labor Party's clause they will be supporting my clause, which effectively includes the items that they wanted in the annual report.

As the minister alluded to before, I have made a few changes to this provision to make it a bit less onerous. There was originally an obligation to identify the amount of single-use plastic that is out there and being sold in the community. That would be very difficult and I appreciate that, so we have modified that clause.

I have added the list of single-use plastic items that we were just debating to make sure that they were included at least in this first review and I understand that has the government's support. The version of new clause 13A—annual report by the minister—I am moving is the one in [Parnell-3] and I am pretty confident that is the one that has everyone's support.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: As previously foreshadowed, the government supports this amendment.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: We will be supporting this amendment.

New clause inserted.

Clauses 14 to 17 passed.

New clause 18.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Maher–1]—

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

18—Review of Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: The Greens will be supporting this amendment for the extensive reasons provided by the Leader of the Opposition just now. This clause basically says that after the third anniversary of the commencement of the act there will be a review, and that is in addition to the annual report the minister is required to prepare.

Annual review clauses are often inserted in legislation and I think it is all the more important for an act such as this, when alternatives to single-use plastic are coming onto the market and becoming available every day of the week. I think what we are going to find is that more and more innovations are made. As well as continually keeping the list of banned items under review via the regulation-making process and via the annual reports to parliament, I think a wholesale review of the act in three years' time makes sense.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: That is the most sensible thing the honourable member has said all day—no, I am being facetious. For all those reasons, the government is also supporting this amendment.

New clause inserted.

The CHAIR: We have an amendment in the name of the Hon. Mr Parnell to amend the long title of the bill.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: That is also consequential on the item that was defeated earlier, so I will not be moving amendment No. 5.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (Minister for Human Services) (18:01): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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