HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-07-22 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

PLASTIC SHOPPING BAGS (WASTE AVOIDANCE) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 18 June 2008. Page 3398.)

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (18:03): I rise to indicate my support for the second reading of this bill, but not without some reluctance. In considering my position I researched the response several countries around the world have adopted on environmental issues associated with the use of plastic bags. Many countries such as Rwanda, Eritrea, Tanzania, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal and Taiwan have implemented complete bans on plastic bags, applicable to either the entire country or the more heavily populated cities in the country.

South Africa, Uganda, Kenya, China and Botswana have implemented bans similar to those proposed by the government, which sees the thinner flimsy plastic bags banned but still allows thicker bags to be used. I understand the theory behind this thinking is that people are less willing to throw away a thicker heavier bag than the thin plastic bags commonly used in supermarkets.

The other common option that has been adopted is imposing a tax or levy for the use of plastic bags. Germany, Hong Kong, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Ireland and Sweden have adopted this approach, with the Irish experience being the most widely publicised. Many members will be aware that Ireland implemented a 15¢ levy on all plastic bags in 2002. Ireland saw a dramatic 95 per cent reduction in the number of plastic bags being supplied to consumers, and recent studies have shown that the general population is now supportive of the change. One problem with introducing a charge, as the Irish experience has shown, is that people often fatigue of the charge, which actually resulted in an increase in the number of bags being used.

I applaud the government for taking the initiative of addressing the issue of plastic bags; however, I am somewhat puzzled as to the aim and timing of this ban. The bill states that the purpose is to restrict the supply of single use plastic shopping bags. In the minister's second reading of the bill she stated that the bill intended to reduce littering, prevent environmental harm and improve resource efficiency. However, I do not believe the government's proposal will go far enough to achieve any of these objectives, especially given that plastic shopping bags constitute only 2 per cent of the litter stream.

On the issue of reducing litter, there are items that are far more evident in the litter stream, such as cigarette butts and packaging from fast food outlets, and the government has made no further proposals to tackle either of these problems. The issue of litter relates to a wide assortment of items, not just plastic bags less than 30 microns in thickness. This is evidenced by the fact that the Marine and Conservation Society (UK) discovered, when examining the stomach contents of a turtle, a variety of plastic debris and not necessarily plastic bags under 30 microns in thickness.

Also, allowing an exemption for biodegradable bags does not address the issue of litter, as studies have shown that people are generally not as careful with the disposal of biodegradable bags, as they think the biodegradable bags will simply break down in the environment. Furthermore, biodegradable bags can take up to 20 years to break down if disposed of incorrectly. Indeed, when tackling the issue of litter, the Irish government decided, in 2002, to include a levy for all bags, including biodegradable bags. This was in recognition of the fact that biodegradable bags contributed to their litter problem.

The minister did not elaborate on what constitutes environmental harm, but she did mention that plastic bags cause a problem for our marine life and landfills. I previously briefly mentioned that other plastic debris is hazardous to marine life, but this is not only limited to products made out of plastic. Nylon ropes, fishing line, balloons and drift nets all pose a danger to marine wildlife, along with plastic six-pack rings and plastic strapping. If saving marine life is one of the focuses of this bill, these issues will need to be addressed.

Clearly, the purpose of restricting the use of single-use plastic shopping bags is not to address the issue of landfill, as banning single-use plastic shopping bags will only result in an increase in the sale of plastic bags and an additional cost to households. The general community commonly reuses these single-use plastic bags for bin liners, the disposal of nappies and for carrying wet items, in addition to many other purposes, and they have become a part of everyday life in many households. Should a ban be implemented immediately, I have no doubt that a comparably similar number of plastic bags will end up in landfill, the only difference being the cost imposed on working families and the types of bags that will be placed in landfill.

Allowing exemptions for bags over 30 microns in thickness poses other problems for landfill as well. Many of the thicker bags are the low density polyethylene variety that cannot be recycled. This not only contributes to the landfill problem, in that the thicker bags take longer to break down, but the low density polyethylene bags cause contamination to recycling programs, should they be disposed of incorrectly.

The alternative of the commonly dubbed 'green' bags is not without fault, either. Whilst an increase in the usage of reusable bags would see a significant decrease in plastic bags, it must be highlighted that the majority of reusable bags are made of polypropylene, a substance that takes just as long, if not longer, to break down as the high density polyethylene supermarket bags. Considering that the green bags are substantially thicker than the single-use bags, it stands to reason that they will take a significantly longer time to break down, if ever.

All high density polyethylene bags are able to be recycled, whether they are the single-use or multiple-use variety, but studies show that the current rate of recycling for the single-use plastic bags stands at a mere 17 per cent. There is no evidence that recycling rates for the green bags would be higher, especially without a community-based education program.

Parts of Europe have introduced a system whereby shoppers are able to exchange their old reusable bags for new ones at retail outlets, and the bags that are traded in are then recycled. This encourages the community to recycle, whilst eliminating the problem of having retail staff handling unhygienic bags.

The last aim mentioned by the minister in her second reading explanation was to improve resource efficiency. The suggestion of providing paper bags in place of plastic bags is one that has been made, but it is far from a comparable alternative. A paper bag is far more of a single-use item than plastic supermarket bags and they cannot carry wet items. Additionally, I am advised that the carbon footprint for using paper bags is far greater than that of plastic bags. Paper is up to six times thicker and heavier than plastic, which contributes to transportation, storage and handling costs. Having paper bags as alternatives to plastic bags is not more efficient and does not reduce the number of resources required for the same result.

A total ban at the outset seems inappropriate, as I believe an intensive education program is needed to advise people to adapt to using fewer plastic bags. Without this, the inconvenience caused to the public would see a great deal of frustration and anger directed towards retail staff. The government announced its intention to ban plastic supermarket bags on 17 April 2008, yet the attitude of South Australians has changed only marginally since that time. The number of South Australians who carry reusable bags with them is quite small, and it is a smaller number still who carry a reusable bag at all times. People who stop off at their local convenience store for half a dozen items will have no other choice but to purchase a green bag unless they are prepared to struggle with individual items.

Not only will an initial outright ban cause an inconvenience to shoppers but also the impact on small businesses in particular will be significant. Unlike the larger companies, which are more adequately equipped to incorporate the changes required for a ban, small and independently owned businesses will struggle to implement the changes, particularly in financial terms. We may see a case where large supermarket chains are able to give away a free green bag with every purchase over $30. However, smaller retailers will not have that luxury.

I understand there is currently a trial in 10 councils across South Australia that involves kitchen waste recycling on a fortnightly collection basis. Kitchen waste currently comprises an average of 41 per cent of waste bin content. The aim of the trial is to see a greater divergence of waste products from landfill by providing a means for householders to dispose of their kitchen waste via their green organic bin. Currently, most councils collect their green organic bins on a fortnightly or monthly basis. It concerns me that councils have not indicated an increase in these collections. Should the trial be successful, I understand this initiative will be introduced to all homes across the state in approximately two to three years.

I question why the government has chosen to implement a ban in May 2009 when a successful trial should reduce reliance upon plastic bags, albeit at a further substantial cost to households. Given that all the information and research into this pilot indicates that it will be a success, perhaps the bill ought to be implemented in a more timely manner. I have highlighted a number of issues with an immediate ban on plastic bags. However, I acknowledge that steps must be taken to reduce our reliance on them.

Finally, I reiterate my primary concern that banning plastic bags will do very little to address the problem of landfill, a problem that is of far more concern than the government has addressed. Landfill will continue to be a problem after this ban, especially given that there are plenty of alternatives which are not of the prescribed type or which are readily available for sale and which replace the plastic shopping bags. I hope this initiative is the first of many to combat environmental issues, and reluctantly support the bill.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. B.V. Finnigan.

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