HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2020-07-23 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

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

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I have a number of questions to ask at clause 1. The headline item of this bill is that certain single-use throwaway plastic items are going to be banned from sale, banned from distribution—you cannot even give them away. Much of the discussion in the community has been around what should those items be. In simplest terms, that is the framework.

The one that received, I think, the most attention was probably plastic straws. It was a big part of the debate because, whilst most people realise that they are an unnecessary and a wasteful product that either ends up in landfill or, problematically, ends up in the marine environment, I think there was a fair bit of agreement on plastic straws once it was recognised that people with special needs and people with certain disabilities would be able to access straws that suited their needs. I think straws was low-hanging fruit. That was an easy one to pass.

As we worked down the list of items that the government consulted on, we find that, when you look at the bill, the number of items that have appeared in the bill are certainly a lot smaller than the ones that were consulted on. In addition, there were from memory 3,500 public submissions, a great many of which had their own suggestions of things that should also be banned and put on the banned list, and yet in clause 6 of the bill the list of prohibited products is really quite small.

What I would like the minister to do first, if she is able to, is to explain why it is that this very small number of items was added to the list, yet the much greater number of items that were consulted on and that members of the community suggested be added were not added. What was the test? What factors did the government take into account in judging, 'We will put straws on the list and we will put single-use plastic cutlery on the list,' but the single-use plastic cutlery comes with a single-use plastic bowl or a single-use plastic plate. Why was it that the plastic knife and fork and spoon made it to the banned list, but the plastic bowl that contains the food, did not make it to the list? What was that process?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I thank the honourable member for his question, which I understand goes to the rationale of one of his amendments. The products listed in the bill, as introduced to parliament, have undergone significant consultation. They were canvassed in the discussion paper, 'Turning the tide on single-use products', discussed through the single-use plastics stakeholder task force and consulted on through the draft legislation.

The products listed in the bill were selected due to their readily available alternatives and the ability for businesses to transition to other products relatively quickly. The 'Turning the tide' discussion paper referred to other types of single-use plastic products, and feedback from the community also suggested other items for government intervention.

The government decided to focus on the initial products listed in the bill to ensure implementation of the legislation. It not only recognised the community interests but was also mindful of reducing disruption to businesses, noting that some are already transitioning away from those products. Recognising the community support for including other products, the government's focus was also in ensuring that the legislation comprises a framework for adding other products into the future.

The government has announced that takeaway coffee cups, plastic bags and other takeaway food service items will be some of the first products to be considered for inclusion in the legislation. The bill at clause 6(2) comprises the framework for adding other products. This process will ensure that impacts, including those to industry and businesses, are adequately understood and considered prior to the items being added to the legislation. Adding the products in the member's amendment without undergoing a consultation process is at odds with this part of the legislation.

Even though some of these products were mentioned in the 'Turning the tide' discussion paper, none were included in the draft bill that was released for consultation. The stakeholder task force has focused its deliberations on the products that are listed in the bill and is of the understanding that further consultation will occur prior to including other products.

Industry and businesses have been constructive in supporting South Australia's approach to single-use plastic products. The government does not want to undo this positive working relationship by hastily adding other products in the absence of appropriate engagement.

Several of the areas yet to be considered with these additional products include: what alternatives are available and how long is required for businesses to transition to these; are they able to be recycled through widely available collection systems and therefore support the principles of a circular economy even though they are single use; what exemptions are required, including for products that are manufactured or packaged together with another product; and what are the social and economic impacts of prohibiting these products?

The government will be supporting another of the member's amendments, filed amendment No. 1 [Parnell-3], which will insert a new clause 13A requiring an annual report by the minister. The initial report will include information regarding the consideration given to the inclusion of the products listed in the member's amendment as prohibited plastic products.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I thank the minister for that answer. It goes some way to explaining the process the government has gone through, but I think it does trip up a little bit on a real-life test. The example I would use is that I go to a few music festivals, WOMAD and things like that, and I have never been offered a plate of dahl from the Indian caravan that has, for example, a bamboo spoon yet is served on a plastic plate. I have just never seen that.

The minister mentioned that there are some businesses that are already embracing these alternative products. There are alternatives, absolutely, to the single-use plastic cutlery in the bill, but my experience has been that I have never seen alternatives to single-use plastic cutlery offered with plastic plates. What I am saying is that they go together. A business, such as a caravan making Indian food for a music festival, is either going to give you a plastic plate and a plastic spoon or it is going to give you a cardboard plate and a bamboo spoon. That is just how it works. I have never experienced businesses that mix, for example, a compostable product with a single-use plastic product.

My question is: why has the government seen fit to differentiate between a plastic plate and a plastic spoon? They often go together. They both have exactly the same propensity, in my view, to end up inappropriately in the waste stream, yet one is in the bill and the other has been kicked down the road for some future time and future consideration. I do not quite accept that the consultation around plastic spoons did not also involve consultation around plastic plates. Surely the same conversation was had, or do I have that wrong? Why spoons and not plates?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Notwithstanding that the honourable member obviously attends enlightened places that are ahead of the curve on these things, the advice I have received is that the list the government was able to reach was a matter of including those on which we believed we could get initial agreement with those parameters, which have been outlined. That is not to preclude that other things will also be included, and that is certainly the intention. It was really as a means to facilitate ensuring that we could have a starting point, if you like. The government believes that to have added additional products into the list through the bill will slow down the process, and we are very keen to crack on.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I thank the minister for the answer. I do understand that the process has been one of trying, if you like, to settle on the lowest of the low hanging fruit and that things in the trickier basket will be dealt with later.

However, one thing that struck me as odd—I will not put it in a pejorative term—is that the government's own discussion paper, the government's own 'Turning the Tide' document, has, on its front cover, an image of a plastic cup that is half submerged in sand. It is on the waterline there, and there is a bit of froth and bubbles. A lot of the government's literature has used this image.

People would look at this and think, 'We're banning single-use plastics,' and the picture on the front cover is a plastic cup that has clearly been inappropriately disposed of—it is in the sea, it is probably going to get eaten by a turtle, it is going to cause all sorts of harm. Yet when they read the detail they find that plastic cups are not included in the bill. I do not know whether the minister can add anything further to what she said, but it strikes me that this is an area where we absolutely have the community on side. There are so few public processes that get three and a half thousand submissions; there is an incredible amount of goodwill in the community.

We will get to amendments later, but the nervousness is that, having settled on single-use cutlery but not settled on plates and bowls and cups—and the framework the minister talks about in the bill has no time frames—there is no guarantee that any particular government would ever act any further than the initial list. That is what makes people nervous.

I will just ask, one more time: that one example, the cup in the sea, why was that, at least, not included on the list? Even if bowls and plates are too hard, why was the 100 per cent plastic cup, as depicted on the government's own document, not included?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: We are happy to be held to account for plastic cups through the amendment of the honourable member, that the government is agreeing to support, to report on these items in our first annual report. We are as keen as he is to see reform.

The issue, though, is that you can have the carrot and stick approach, but what the government has tried to do is work constructively with business. We think that is the best approach, in the first instance, to get all stakeholders on board so that we can start the journey in terms of eliminating these products from the waste stream. I am advised that the slackers in the House of Assembly have gone home—

The CHAIR: Order! The members of the other place.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Sorry; I withdraw that pejorative statement. Is it appropriate at this point that I report progress?

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

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