HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-10-16 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

PLASTIC SHOPPING BAGS (WASTE AVOIDANCE) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 24 September 2008. Page 246.)

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (16:14): I am the lead speaker for the opposition on this matter. I think some of my colleagues expressed an interest in speaking on it, although I am not sure whether or not they will take their opportunity to do so. However, there are a few things that I want to say about this. Might I say, at the outset, that the opposition is not convinced by the argument that this is a good piece of legislation, it is not convinced that this is the way that we should be going and is not convinced that South Australia should be going down this path on its own. I know the government's response to that will be to look at the example of the container deposit legislation. The opposition has always been a supporter of that particular piece of legislation. I do not even know which party was in power when it was introduced—

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: Labor. I accept that that is possibly correct. It has been a very successful piece of legislation. However, might I point out that putting a deposit of 5¢ (and now 10¢) on certain drink containers is somewhat different from managing so-called single-use lightweight plastic bags. The reason is that by sheer numbers there are far fewer drink containers and they are much easier to handle and manage, and it has been much easier to create a return and recycling system based on them. I do not think it is fair to argue that, because that legislation has worked and has been effective in removing those particular containers from the litter stream, we can achieve the same with regard to so-called single-use lightweight plastic bags.

One of the reasons I say that is because my memory (going back to when I was much younger and before the container deposit legislation was introduced in South Australia) is that drink containers formed quite a significant part of the litter stream. The evidence seems to suggest (and I will be quoting some of the evidence as I go through my remarks) that the bags we are talking about now make up a relatively small portion of the litter stream. Some reports suggest 2 per cent and others suggest 3 per cent. In either case, there is plenty of evidence that there are more important environmental issues on which we could spend the dollars that it is going to cost the community by introducing this piece of legislation.

There has been a campaign of misinformation over plastic bags. The opposition is not saying that plastic bags do not form part of the litter problem. We are not saying that we should not be looking at ways to reduce both the number of plastic bags that are being used and looking at ways to reduce how they get into the litter stream. We do not have a problem with that. We have a problem with this unilateral approach and whether the substantial cost to the community is warranted when there are other more important environmental issues which we, as a community, do not seem to be able to find the funds to address.

One of the concerns I have is what I can only describe as the hyperbole that the government has been using to back up its support for this legislation. When introducing the bill, the minister said the estimated national consumption of plastic bags for 2007 was 3.93 billion, of which 40 million were estimated to have ended up as unsightly litter on our beaches and in our parks and streets. My understanding is that one of the problems with these bags is that they have a life in the environment of many years.

Some people have suggested hundreds of years, but I think many commentators suggest that they do have a life of many years. If, within Australia, 40 million per year were ending up on our beaches, in our parks and on our streets, I think we could assume that a significant number of those would be there after the first year, after the second year and after the third year. It suggests to me that the minister is arguing that, in fact, if you walk down to the beach or a street or a park in Australia, you will encounter hundreds of millions of plastic bags. That just simply is not the case.

I am not arguing that there are no plastic bags in the litter stream, but I am arguing that the government has somewhat exaggerated the case. Another point that the minister has made is that they also kill marine life and damage waterways on land. That is an interesting remark, because it has been made in a number of different ways and, obviously, it has been part of the reasoning around the cabinet table. I would have to assume this because of the sort of evidence that has been coming forth. In question time on 4 March, the Premier told the house, 'according to Planet Ark, [plastic bags] kill at least 100,000 birds, whales, seals and turtles each year'.

This bill was previously introduced by the previous environment minister in the other place before the winter break and before the parliament was prorogued, and that is why it has been reintroduced here. This is the second time that it has been introduced. In answer to a question in the other place on Tuesday, 6 May, the minister said:

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.

So, we have the Premier telling this chamber that, according to Planet Ark, 100,000 animals and birds are killed because of plastic bags, and we have the former minister of the environment telling the other place that 100,000 animals a year are being killed by plastic bags. It is a claim that indeed warrants some investigation.

The National Association of Retail Grocers of Australia has investigated this, and it found out some revealing facts of which, I am sure, the organisations and the politicians who are responsible for arguing the case, are aware. Yet, I think various organisations, including Zero Waste SA, have chosen to ignore the facts. Apparently, the federal Department for Environment and Heritage had listed this story about the 100,000 birds and animals on its website and, when the truth of the matter was pointed out, instead of removing the claim, it simply said that the deaths had been caused by plastic debris.

The reality is that the information—and this has obviously turned into at least an urban myth—has come from a study conducted in Newfoundland, Canada in the late 1980s. The association I have just referred to, NARGA, tracked down a copy of the study in the New South Wales State Library—as it points out, less than a hundred metres from the state Parliament House in Macquarie Street, Sydney.

It said that the study had estimated that up to 100,000 marine birds and animals might have been killed over a four-year period by plastic fishing lines and nets—nothing to do with light weight, so-called single-use plastic bags. The numbers, it appears, even by Planet Ark, were its estimation of the death of marine animals and birds over a four-year period. Here we have the taking of a study, which has been gilded somewhat to try to make a case so that the Premier of South Australia can go before the people of this state in an endeavour to enhance his green credentials.

The study has been proved to have not referred to plastic bags. It has been proved to be talking about plastics used in the fishing industry—ropes, nets and things, which have been abandoned or lost within the fishing industry. To try to make a case for banning light weight, single-use plastic bags in South Australia on the basis of that study is a nonsense. Let me repeat: I am not making a case that it is not something that we should be looking at.

Let me just talk about what some of the stakeholders here in South Australia have been saying. Business SA is concerned about this legislation. It is concerned about South Australia going it alone, because it believes that it may well cause a competitive disadvantage for this state. That is what Business SA believes.

Maybe I should be referring to these as HDPE, high density polyethylene bags. The number of these bags used in Australia has decreased from around six billion in 2002 to 3.92 billion in 2005, a reduction of some 35 per cent. I do not know why Peter Vaughan from Business SA used the 2005 figures, but I understand that by 2006, I think it was, the reduction was more like 45 per cent. I do understand that, having met that initial significant reduction in the use, there is now a bit of an increase in the use of those bags, and I might come to that in a moment. The Independent Supermarkets Council of South Australia has raised with the government a number of issues over this.

It is important to note that I think that organisation was quite happy to support such a ban, or another initiative that has been discussed which I will come to, that is, introducing some sort of levy. I do not think that the Independent Supermarkets Council of South Australia would be as opposed if this was done in the other states as a national approach to the problem. This letter, written to the previous minister in May this year, states:

We have not sighted any analysis of the true benefits of the banning of the bags in question other than the Irish experience about which there is contradictory evidence.

Apparently a study was done in Ireland. My understanding is that the Irish experience was not a banning exercise but a levy exercise where, I think, shoppers were charged €15¢ on plastic bags and, apparently, there was a significant reduction in the number of bags used. I understand that that reduction was relatively short lived, but I will come back to that.

They do raise a number of issues in relation to health and hygiene—which the government seems to be ignoring— and the fact that these bags do provide a clean, healthy receptacle in which to place food items to take from the place of purchase to home. They provide a barrier between the different classes of food, such as fresh meat, vegetables and household cleaning products. They do point out that the reusable bags—the cloth bags which are made of polypropylene—do have a use-by date and there is no guarantee of the cleanliness of them. They point out some of the OH&S issues which the unions' representing shop workers have raised about OH&S.

The state retailers association wrote to the minister—also in May this year—and this is an acknowledgment of the work that needs to be done because it points out that the public's acceptance of the use of reusable bags seems to have peaked and, in fact, has started to decline. That is an interesting thing. It is also points out that this debate has been going on for at least six years, probably a little longer, in a serious way in this country.

I understand that the ministerial council of environment ministers has been working towards this and there was an agreement in 2005 that across Australia we would ban these bags or find an alternative way of ameliorating their impact by 2008. We know that the ministers met on 17 April this year and, as a result of the press reports from that meeting, that the South Australian minister (Hon. Gail Gago from the other place) put a very strong case to try to get her colleagues from the other states across the line on taking action. It is interesting that all the other jurisdictions in Australia chose not to go down that path—chose not to do what we are doing here in South Australia.

The Victorians said that they were running a trial on a levy on plastic bags at a couple of sites. I am sure Warrnambool in the western part of the state was one of the areas where they ran the trial. Some results from that trial were released a week ago and they are quite dramatic. They were talking about a 10-cent levy on the bags and my understanding is that there was a 79 per cent reduction in the number of bags used during the trial.

Ministers—other than the South Australian minister—agreed to await the results of that trial. The results have been quite dramatic. I would like to think that South Australia may well have taken different action from that which is proposed or to which the government has committed itself in the early part of this year—in fact, straight after the April.

Interestingly, the Productivity Commission has prepared a report on the foreshadowed ban on high density polyethylene shopping bags. The report makes interesting reading. The recommendation in the report states:

Governments and retailers should not proceed with their foreshadowed plan to eliminate plastic shopping bags by the end of 2008 unless it is supported by transparent cost-benefit analysis. The analysis should clarify the problems that the ban would seek to address, the response of the community to a ban and whether or not alternatives such as tougher anti-litter laws and means for encouraging greater community participation in controlling litter would achieve better outcomes for the community.

I think that is a pretty fine recommendation. I cannot see in the minister's comments when introducing the bill any evidence whatsoever that any of that work has been done; that is, any transparent cost-benefit analysis—in fact, I do not even think any non-transparent cost-benefit analysis has been done.

I have already argued and evidenced the fact that the government supposedly identified a problem from a false premise, a false interpretation, of the Planet Ark study. The reason for instituting this is flawed, in my opinion. So weak is the government's argument for the introduction of this measure that the former minister's remarks in the other place seemed to signal to the house that one of the reasons why they should proceed with this matter is that the previous Governor (opening this parliament post the 2006 election) identified that this was an important issue. For goodness sake, the Governor's speech is written by the Premier. This is the same Premier who told this house the nonsense about the Planet Ark study.

It is interesting to note that that nonsense is also on the website of Zero Waste South Australia. It is also included in the information that Zero Waste South Australia put out when it was calling for tenders for a media campaign to support the ban. The now discredited Planet Ark story, that urban myth, seems to be the only piece of half decent evidence that the government has to support its wont to put this ban in place. It is recognised that these bags are very convenient, they have positive health benefits and they are very cheap to produce.

I talked about the Productivity Commission's report. That report goes through all the benefits of these bags such as those to which I have just referred. The report says:

The current plastic shopping bag is well suited to its task. It is cheap, light weight, resource efficient, functional, moisture resistant, allows for quick packing at the supermarket and is remarkably strong for its weight.

It does have a significant number of benefits. It is interesting that the Zero Waste website also says that, before these bags were handed out at supermarkets, people obviously did not use them as bin liners. What they did was wrap their rubbish in newspaper and/or they washed their bins as they emptied them. We now know that one of the scarcest resources we have in this city, in this state, is water. So, are we saying we are going to have a positive impact on the environment in South Australia by not having so-called single-use shopping bags available for people to use as bin liners and that they should, instead, wash their bins? I am sure that there would be a water cost to that.

I know that my wife recycles all the newspaper that goes through our household, but if we go back to using that same newspaper to line our rubbish bins and to wrap our rubbish up in, we are going to create another problem. No study has been done and there has been no evidence presented to this house to compare the benefits or non-benefits of using so-called single-use plastic shopping bags as bin liners or going back and using newspaper and/or washing your bin on a regular basis, at least daily. None of that work has been done; none of the evidence has been presented.

The opposition recognises the issue. It recognises that it is an issue which we should have on our radar. It recognises that there are considerable benefits in a national approach. It recognises that instituting a ban in this jurisdiction alone will have significant cost disbenefit to the state. The jury is still out on the question of whether the big stick approach, vis-a-vis a ban, or the carrot approach, vis-a-vis some sort of levy or cost penalty, would be more appropriate and more effective.

That is the position the opposition takes. I indicate that I will have some questions on the clauses of the bill in committee.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (16:42): I congratulate the member for MacKillop on his very thorough—as is his practice—review of the bill. It does not surprise me, even though he has only held the shadow portfolio for a relatively short time, that he has prepared himself so well and is so aware of all the issues raised by the numerous bodies involved in this serious matter.

However, I wish to focus a bit more on local issues as they relate to me and comments I have received relating to this bill. I would first like to focus on comments which have come from a storekeeper within my electorate. He is an aggressive businessperson and he has just spent millions of dollars on building a new facility, which is making a real difference to his retail trade figures in the community of Ardrossan.

As is his wont regarding many issues that come across his desk that concern him, he has contacted me and wants me, on his behalf, to express the concerns that he has about the introduction of this legislation and what the impact upon his business will be. He understands the fact that there is a need for environmental responsibility around South Australia and the nation, there is no doubt about that, but he is primarily concerned about his ability to compete within the region that he serves, and he draws people from other communities to his shop. He is also really concerned about the issues for his staff.

He is aware that transition periods were proposed and that there was going to be a gradual introduction of this, but he is fearful that, because there are so many people out there who will not necessarily be aware of the introduction of this and the fact that the so-called single-use shopping bags will no longer be available when purchasing products and goods from his store, people will just say, 'Well, what are we going to do? How are we going to take things home?' Boxes are available in some numbers, there is no doubt about that.

Will this force people to buy numerous quantities of the green bags, which you can get from lots of different stores and use for a certain period of time? You have to be concerned about how clean they are and the transfer of germs, especially if they have held fresh foodstuffs, such as a meat-based product that has bled into the bag.

He really wants to make sure that his staff will not be in a situation where they could potentially be criticised by and subject to the aggressive nature of some people in the store. On this side of the house, we want to make sure that legislation that passes the house is always appropriate.

In reading the briefing paper, I know that four billion of these bags are produced each year and that 400 million of those are in South Australia. In reading other documents, we are certainly aware that, where efforts have been made to reduce the consumption of these bags, it has worked fairly well. A target of 50 per cent was set and, from what I have read, 45 per cent has been achieved, so that is a significant move downwards.

The green bags certainly filled a big void in reducing that target, but we all have stories of people with very good intentions who buy the green bags, intending to have them with them when they go to the supermarket but, when it comes to the crunch, they have forgotten them and had to buy another one. There is a lot of worry out there.

The shadow minister has gone through the issues as they relate to legislation very well, but it comes down to competitiveness within South Australia as a marketplace for Australia. The business people I have spoken to are worried about the local effect, as they know that the roll-on could be how South Australia is seen.

It is interesting that this legislation leads the nation. The previous minister for environment could not get agreement between all the ministers for environment around the nation, and she decided to proceed with this. When the Attorney-General is in the chamber, he quite often makes comments, and one was about a piece of legislation earlier today when he deliberately said that South Australia tends to follow along behind other states that show initiative and bring in legislation and that, therefore, by the time we get to it, it is in an improved version. However, here we have legislation that is the reverse of that, where South Australia is seen in some areas as leading the nation.

Will we really get the best benefit? It is obvious to me that the so-called single-use bags are not single-use bags. Like many here, people probably collect them at home and use them as bin liners and so on. I know that my wife and I have done that forever, in addition to using the other green bags and such that we use. However, they are not overflowing and the pantry is not full of them. They are reused for household scraps and waste, they keep the bin clean and they then go into the wheelie bin. In his contribution, the member for MacKillop mentioned the water that is used to keep those things clean, too.

So, you might win in some areas, but it costs you in others. That is why we on this side of the chamber really ask the question: have all the issues associated with this decision been contemplated? The Victorian experience of a trial levy appears to have worked, and the shadow minister quoted a 75 per cent reduction in one community where the levy had been trialled. Obviously, in relation to a direct cost, people really think about it. So, there has to be some compromise.

I find it rather bizarre that the bags that are available on a roll within a supermarket for fruit and vegetables are not covered by this measure. However, these bags are defined as 35 microns or less, have handles and are covered as part of it. There appears to be some inequality there. Let us make sure that we get it right. It is a good thing that South Australia is showing some initiative but, again, I question whether, in this case, this initiative is targeted in the right direction.


[Sitting extended beyond 17:00 on motion of Hon. J.W. Weatherill]


Ms SIMMONS (Morialta) (16:49): I rise today to speak briefly on the bill. Despite the fact that, as we have heard, last year Australians used almost 40 per cent fewer single-use plastic bags—that is, the thin supermarket shopping bags—in 2007, 4.2 billion of them were distributed across Australia. We still use over 10 million plastic bags a day. To answer the member for MacKillop's question, these bags take between 15 to 1,000 years to break down in the environment. I think the member for MacKillop really is nitpicking about the information that can be found on the Planet Ark website. In my latest newsletter I have a photo of a turtle dying from eating a plastic bag, which can clearly be seen in its mouth. I think the danger to our birds, whales, seals and turtles every year is significant, and I believe that bringing that fantastic organisation into discredit does the honourable member no good at all.

Many will argue that these bags are recyclable and are used for many different purposes within the household, as we have heard from the member for Goyder. Yet Australians throw away about 7,150 of these recyclable plastic bags a minute, with 429,000 recyclable plastic supermarket bags dumped in landfill every hour. Our local councils tell us that they are the single main contaminant of kerbside recycling—which is probably why you do not see them when you walk down the street, because our local governments do such a good job.

As has already been said, most of us use these bags to line our kitchen bins rather than washing out the bins after emptying. The major supermarkets, such as Coles and Woolworths, also tell us that they are doing their bit by providing recycling facilities in their stores, but only about 5 per cent of bags issued end up back there. We are too disorganised, forgetful or lazy to return the bags after we use them. Many Australians consider these single-use plastic bags as their right; they see them as a free commodity which saves them from buying bin liners or remembering their reusable bags. In fact, it is estimated that there is a cost to every household in Australia of between $10 to $15 per year added to the price of goods purchased. Just because it is an invisible cost does not mean that it does not exist.

In passing this bill South Australia will be leading the nation with an outright ban on plastic bags, in the same way as we pioneered the environmentally responsible deposit on containers 31 years ago. It is a pity that all the states, territories and commonwealth could not come to a single approach agreement after six years of discussions, but I am proud that there will be 400 million fewer of these bags entering South Australian waste and litter streams every year. There will be 1,600 tonnes less of plastic contributing to greenhouse gases, clogging up landfill, and littering our streets and streams, as well as killing sea life.

An important part of this historic ban will be working with large and small retailers and union representatives to address any potential health and safety implications for both shop assistants and the public. As I discussed in my recent electoral newsletter to Morialta residents, I have some serious concerns about the use of what have been called environmental bags for groceries. I believe there are occupational health, safety and welfare implications, especially for our check-out operators. The bags currently in use are large and strong, and there is a temptation to fill them to capacity simply because they are strong enough to bear the weight.

They actually hold about 10 kilograms, and I want you to imagine what it would be like for a check-out operator lugging hundreds of these bags every day from a waist-height register to a knee-high pick up point. I am also concerned about older customers being tempted to lug them into their trolley, then their car, and then into their homes. I worry that the risk of back and neck injury could be high if precautions are not taken by everyone using them. I have asked my constituents—and I suggest to the house today—that people be very careful as to how they pack these larger bags, and even consider buying smaller bags to spread the load. Indeed, I have actually ordered some smaller bags to give away so that people can judge the difference for themselves.

Notwithstanding all this information about reusable bags, I am delighted to support the bill, as I believe that plastic shopping bags are an environmental menace. I note that the community has an increasing desire to protect the environment, and banning these lightweight one-use bags is a tangible way for people to make a difference.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Minister for Environment and Conservation, Minister for Early Childhood Development, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Minister Assisting the Premier in Cabinet Business and Public Sector Management) (16:55): I thank honourable members for their contribution. I will briefly respond to some of the points that were made by both the member for MacKillop and the member for Goyder. I understand that the member for MacKillop has some questions that he would like to raise during the committee stage.

I also foreshadow that there are, in fact, some government amendments that we will be promoting as part of this proposition. I understand that they have been tabled, but I will check that. They are amendments that arose out of consultations with industry.

Mr Williams interjecting:

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Sorry; they are incorporated in the bill. They are already in the bill, so you should be aware of them. This differs from the bill that was in the upper house in a number of respects, and they are responsive to the concerns of industry, as was mentioned earlier.

The essential point that the member for MacKillop raises is that there is some concern about the evidence base for this, and that South Australia should not go it alone but should actually be part of a national response. I think the two things are related. If there is a case to be made for doing this, the case really does not exist for us not to pursue the matter on our own. We have a fine tradition in South Australia of pursuing groundbreaking environmental legislation. We should not be unnecessarily slowed up by a national approach which refuses to participate or adopt these proposals. Of course, it is important to try to reach national agreement, and we have done that, but the failure to achieve that should not prevent us from moving forward if there is a proper case.

The case is compelling. The life-cycle costs associated with these lightweight plastic bags going to landfill—leaving aside the environmental effects in terms of amenity, litter and damage to other life forms—is compelling. The work is being done, and it indicates that the banning of these bags will have a very substantial benefit for the environment. An extraordinary number of these bags are used over the course of a year. In 2007, a comparison of existing life-cycle analysis reveals that, over a two-year period, replacing all lightweight single-use shopping bags consumed nationally on an annual basis with reusable non-woven polypropylene green bags will deliver the following environmental gains:

48,200 tonnes waste avoided, equivalent to diverting 4,400 garbage trucks full of waste bags from landfill;

greenhouse—84,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions abated, the equivalent of taking 19,600 cars off the road for a year;

energy—2.8 million gigajoules of energy saved, the equivalent of powering for 152,000 homes for a year;

water—100,000 kilolitres of water saved.

A life-cycle benefit is associated with the banning of these plastic bags and it stands independently of the amenity issues and the damage to wildlife which are more difficult to quantify. The rest of the member for MacKillop's argument amounts to the conservative proposition that it is not a big problem and there are more important issues. That is just a question of philosophical stance. The case is made and we should act.

The member for Goyder talked about the cleanliness of the reusable bags and he raised that concern from a retailer. Of course, we are not saying that the single-use barrier plastic bags cannot be used for meat and other products that are likely to soil a bag, so that should be attended to. He raised the question of criticism by angry consumers and staff, and we are concerned about that. That is why we, along with the SDA, commissioned a study about the effects of these changes on the workforce and there were two particular issues: the criticism that some workers may receive at the hands of consumers, and the occupational health and safety issues.

One of the amendments we propose is a two-year review of this proposition and, during that period, we believe it would also be proper for there to be a suitable audit of the study recommendations that were developed concerning occupational health and safety, and they ought to be incorporated into that review process. It has been suggested that plastic shopping bags are used for bin liners and other things, and that will cause a difficulty. Since the announcement of the ban, the government has received comments of that sort. The Irish experience is often cited. We have found that the reduction in the use of plastic shopping bags significantly outweighs the increase in kitchen tidy bag sales when that has been analysed in the jurisdictions that have gone down this path.

While bin liners are convenient, they are a recent creation and, prior to only a few decades ago, people had other ways of keeping their bin clean such as wrapping rubbish in newspaper, composting it, and putting rubbish in the bin and washing their bin regularly. Using plastic bin liners is convenient but not environmentally ideal and, as we move to the process of recycling even more waste from our household waste stream, we want to discourage the use of that form of waste disposal.

We also note the suggestion that Victorian levy trials seem to suggest that the levy is a more appropriate approach. The difficulty with the levy is that it does not achieve the objective of removing the lightweight plastic bags from the litter stream: it simply retains them and it does not discourage all of the use of the plastic bags. It may reduce the use, but certainly it does not achieve the objective of a complete reduction. Those are my general remarks in respect of the responses and I thank the member for Morialta for her contribution in support of the bill. I commend the second reading to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 and 2 passed.

Clause 3.

Mr WILLIAMS: This bill introduces some changes to the measure that was introduced in the upper house, as the minister pointed out, a few moments ago. From my reading of the two bills it seems that you have somewhat changed the emphasis from just a straight-out ban to emphasise the replacement of a bag with a biodegradable bag; a bag not dissimilar to the lightweight bag but one that is biodegradable. I have some samples of these sorts of bags, which were shown to me by your officers when they briefed me on the bill.

My question is: if we are going to see the use of a bag, which is not dissimilar to the lightweight polyethylene bag that we have been using for many years, and the only change is going to be that it is biodegradable, how is that going to have an impact, such as you describe in your summing up, and how is it going to reduce other impacts?

In your answer you might inform the committee of how long it takes for these biodegradable bags to break down. My understanding of the Australian standard is that they have to break down in a compost situation within 120 days. I do not know to what extent they have to break down and I do not know how much they would be broken down after 120 days in a non-composting situation—that is, blowing down the street or on the beach or, indeed, floating around in a marine environment and endangering marine species. Could you give the committee some understanding of the advantages of a biodegradable bag under those circumstances?

Also, you indicated that the weight was the measure used and that the weight of material would be less if we banned the bags. However, they are going to be replaced by another not dissimilar bag which will probably weigh the same and have the same volume, and it will probably end up in our bins, so we will get very little advantage there.

You mentioned that there was going to be a water saving. I am not sure what the water saving will be, particularly if we are going to be washing our bins every day. I would have thought that would be a water cost, but I presume that there may be some water saving in the manufacturing process. Can you expand on the savings that you highlighted in your summing up a minute ago and what impact the use of a biodegradable bag may have on that.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I think the amendments do not really have the bias that is being suggested. There always was provision in the original bill in respect of biodegradable bags. What has occurred is that there has been some greater clarification around the definition of biodegradable bags in order to ensure clarity about precisely what we are talking about. It was also about the way the Australian standards operate to ensure that we know when we have a biodegradable bag and to get the clarification that was necessary for retailers.

The first proposition here is to really try to avoid single-use bags where we can. The most desirable course is to use green bags, and people are taking to them in large numbers. We are also finding that, at the checkout level, people are refusing bags. People may absentmindedly put one item in a bag when they could just simply carry that item out of the shop. People are now being offered a choice about whether they want a bag at all and a lot of them are saying no, and that is causing a reduction.

The ultimate goal was to reduce single-use plastic bags; the next best proposition is to have no bag at all; and the next best proposition, I suppose, is to have a reusable bag. However, if you are caught out and you need to do some shopping and you need a bag to carry it home, then the compostable bags provide that convenience. It is not our desired course, but it is made available as a convenience.

The single-use plastic bags are a petroleum-based product, which itself is a less desirable product from the point of view of the environment and, of course, a biodegradable bag breaks down in compost within a maximum of 120 days. So, it is a much more environmentally-friendly product.

Mr HANNA: I ask the minister about the definition of 'plastic shopping bag'. It seems that, if a carry bag does not have handles, it will be exempt. I wonder whether that provides an easy way out for supermarket chains. Instead of having bags at the check-out, with which we are currently familiar, they could have the same sorts of bags without handles. Is that not going to leave it open to circumvention?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The reason we have left that in there is for hygiene reasons; it is there for meat. It is the bags that are on the roll in the vegetable shops and the like and also the butcher shops. I can see what you are saying, that is, that they could be used as a backdoor way of doing it. We do not think that that will happen, because they will be a bit inconvenient to use in that fashion. Without the handles, they will be a bit hard to gather up shopping and use in that fashion.

Mr WILLIAMS: Minister, in asking this question, I advise that I have been given the answer by your departmental officers. I think the committee deserves to have an explanation about the definition of 'relevant [Australian] standard'. Later on in the bill an offence is created by purporting to be offering a biodegradable bag which is not a biodegradable bag. Can you explain to the committee how the standard is upheld and how we physically determine that the bags that are being supplied are indeed biodegradable as an alternative?

I understand that a lot of these bags are made in China, and we have seen an interesting substitution racket occur in China in recent times. To the lay person, the only way of distinguishing between a biodegradable bag and a non-biodegradable bag is the fact that the biodegradable bag might have printed on it that it is indeed a biodegradable bag. Can you explain to the committee how that will be policed?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: There is a process where I think Flinders University provides the regime to test whether a bag meets the Australian standards. I am advised that, physically, the difference between the biodegradable bag and the bag we are used to seeing in the supermarket will be quite apparent. I suppose the balance of that really gets down to a question of our checking to make sure that people are not passing off bogus plastic bags. Obviously, the offence is there to provide a pretty serious disincentive for someone to do such a thing.

Mr HANNA: In my 2003 legislation, I defined the forbidden shopping bags in the following way:

plastic shopping bag means a plastic bag used, or intended for use, as a means of carrying goods purchased, or to be purchased, by retail from a shop but does not include—

(a) a plastic bag that—

(i) is provided for the purpose of containing goods—

(A) that are not otherwise contained in any packaging; or

(B) that are priced according to the weight purchased (where the weight is measured at the shop); and

(ii) complies with any other requirements prescribed by regulation; or

(b) a bag that is made of paper or other cellulose-based material and that is coated with polyethylene plastic on only one side; or

(c) a plastic bag of a class that the authority is satisfied is designed to be suitable for repeated use and that has been exempted from this definition by regulation;

I know that is a lot to take in in one breath, but I presume that the minister has had a look at my earlier legislation. I just wonder why the minister found that definition deficient.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I think there are a couple of explanations. I do not think that the honourable member's definition dealt with the thickness of the plastic bag, because lots of bags that are capable of being reused are plastic. It is those very small, thin plastic bags we are seeking to target in this. That was one issue. Also, quite a lot of technological developments have occurred with respect to alternatives, so our definition is framed in terms of alternatives. I suppose it is really the developments that have occurred since the honourable member's definition was drafted.

Clause passed.

Clause 4.

Mr WILLIAMS: This clause provides that the retailer must provide an alternative shopping bag, and there are two alternatives. One is a biodegradable bag. Notwithstanding the minister's comments that they are easily distinguishable (and I accept that; they may well be), the one or two I have had a look at and actually handled are not dissimilar to the so-called single-use lightweight bag that we have become accustomed to. The other alternative, obviously, is the reusable bag which, again, we have become accustomed to. The fact is that the retailer must provide one of these, and I assume that most retailers will provide the choice of both.

Knowing how competitive the retail industry is, I suspect that, in some instances, at least in the early stages of the operation of this act, the reusable bags may well be supplied free of charge. Subclause (2) provides:

This section does not prevent a retailer from requiring a customer to pay a fee for the provision of an alternative shopping bag.

I would argue that there is probably a fair bit of commercial pressure on retailers not to charge a fee, notwithstanding that I have been informed that the cost of the reusable bag is probably at least 8¢, whereas the single-use (so-called) bag we have become used to is costed probably more at around 1¢. I suspect that the commercial reality is that a number of retailers will wear that cost, at least in the short term, to maintain market share. As I mentioned in my second reading contribution, the move away from the lightweight plastic bag to the reusable bag—people call it a cloth bag, but, again, it is another plastic product—seems to have peaked. In fact, there has been a bit of a swing back to using the other bag because of its convenience.

I wonder how much we expect to gain through this measure without having the fee, and why has the government not waited to get a full report on the study the Victorian government instituted on the impact of the fee in that state?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I think that from 2002 to 2005 what we saw was voluntary efforts, where green bags were promoted. That led to a reduction in the use of the single-use plastic bags. However, that has gradually drifted back up again. So, that is the experience. I suppose that really underscores why we are taking this approach because, in the absence of that stronger regulatory response that we are proposing, it is unlikely in itself to be effective in achieving the outcome that we are seeking.

Mr WILLIAMS: My only comment to the minister is that I wish him luck. I think members of the community have demonstrated that they enjoy the convenience of that lightweight plastic bag. So, I wish the minister luck.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (5 to 9) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Minister for Environment and Conservation, Minister for Early Childhood Development, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Minister Assisting the Premier in Cabinet Business and Public Sector Management) (17:22): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

I thank all members for their contribution to the debate.

Mr HANNA (Mitchell) (17:23): It was interesting to discuss the definition, in particular, during the committee stage. Members will recall that, although in March 2003 I had put forward a levy proposal in legislation in this place to create an impost on plastic shopping bags to discourage their use, in October of that year I put forward similar legislation to ban plastic shopping bags.

I am grateful to Aimee Travers of parliamentary counsel for that definition that we came up with together for that 2004 legislation. I still think it holds up pretty well today, notwithstanding advances in technology.

As a final note to this legislation, I refer to the survey I conducted in the electorate of Mitchell earlier this year when I found that, although a majority would oppose legislation such as this, there was a substantial minority who were happy with a ban on plastic bags. Interestingly, a lot more people favoured the idea of a ban than a levy. That surprised me in a way, because I would have thought that consumers would want to have retained a choice, even at a cost, in terms of plastic bags at supermarkets. However, it is not the case. The government has gone down the path of a ban on plastic bags. I believe that after an initial period of inconvenience and annoyance we will adapt and, on the whole, that will be for the benefit of the environment.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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