Legislative Council Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2) 51 2 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Question Time Plastic Bags PLASTIC BAGS The Hon. R.D. LAWSON Legislative Council PLASTIC BAGS The Hon. R.D. LAWSON (14:39): My supplementary questions are as follows: 1.	Has any study been made of the economic impact of the banning of single-use plastic bags? 2.	By whom and when was that economic study undertaken? 3.	Will the minister tell the council what will be the cost to the consumer and to industry of this ban? 4.	What evidence does the minister have that the additional costs associated with this ban will not be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices? The Hon. G.E. GAGO Legislative Council Minister for Environment and Conservation, Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse, Minister Assisting the Minister for Health PLASTIC BAGS The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Environment and Conservation, Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse, Minister Assisting the Minister for Health) (14:39): A range of cost-benefit studies has been done in relation to plastic bags. Quite simply, many of the cost-efficiency and effectiveness formulas that we use do not incorporate strong environmental values. They are basically economic rationalist formulas and, according to these formulas, unless they impact on commercial fish stock, they do not have an economic value. We know that our environment has an enormous value. As one person has said to me, some of the work done by Planet Ark reveals that around 100,000 marine animals are killed or injured each year because of these plastic bags. The question is: what is the cost of a dolphin's life? I do not believe that environmental values are incorporated or weighted enough in these formulas, and I challenge them. In terms of the cost, as I said, some 4 billion unnecessary items of plastic are in the Australian environment, and we do not need them in our environment or in our life. Significant environmental work and studies have been done that compare the environmental footprint of the different alternatives and, to the best of my knowledge and the information I have, each one has shown that the item with the largest environmental footprint is the high density, single use, polyethylene plastic bag. These plastic bags are an unnecessary element in our environment and, as Planet Ark has stated, the cost is the death of 100,000 marine animals each year. These bags are unnecessary both in terms of wastefulness and natural resources. We know that other alternatives have a much smaller environmental footprint, and there is much evidence to prove that. Plastic bags are a completely unnecessary part of our environment. As with seat belts, it was very difficult for us to make the change and to remember to put them on, but we made the change very quickly and we now feel most uncomfortable if we do not have a seatbelt on. We will feel very much the same way about plastic bags. In terms of occupational health and safety issues in relation to these changes, the South Australian government commissioned and paid for the study so that potential impacts could be identified ahead of time and so that we could work with industry to plan and ensure the safety of our workers. That shows a very responsible government and one that is prepared to show some environmental courage and leadership.