HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-11-11 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

PLASTIC SHOPPING BAGS (WASTE AVOIDANCE) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 28 October 2008. Page 436.)

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (16:24): I rise to indicate the Liberal Party's opposition to the bill and to place some comments on the record. There are developments that should give us cause to rethink these provisions. We will support the second reading but, if necessary, will call for a division at the third reading. I give that notice so that other members can make a firm decision on the way they feel about this measure, one way or another. This bill is a classic case of using a sledgehammer to crack a peanut. These single-use plastic bags are one of the most maligned but useful objects ever created and, whilst I agree that we ought to undertake measures to decrease their use, we think it is quite patronising of a government to declare that they must be outlawed and that South Australians will no longer be able to use them.

They are a very conspicuous part of the litter stream which is, I think, why they have been picked on and, yet, they are a very narrow part of the litter stream. As honourable members will be aware, it is fairly obvious that there are much more hazardous parts of the litter stream, such as ewaste, and there are parts of the litter stream which are much larger in volume. Indeed, there is some research which demonstrates that these particular bags (single-use bags) which are being banned may actually play some role in stabilising methane gases in landfill.

As a bit of background, this measure was announced by the government earlier this year and, initially, it was to take effect on 1 January next year. I think the government has wisely listened to the retail sector which said that, as it will be in the middle of the silly season, the government may not want to introduce major changes, because if retailers are to redefine their checkouts that would take place in the middle of December, which is clearly a peak time. I am pleased that the full ban will not commence until 4 May—if, indeed, this measure gets through.

This bill bans plastic shopping bags which are made of HDPE, have a thickness of less than 35 microns and must include handles. I have to say that this topic is one which startles people when you tell them what is actually being banned. These are the so-called barrier bags. It would not surprise me with particular products that people purchase at the moment (mostly meat products as people often do like to have a plastic bag) that there would need to be some sort of a substitute. Indeed, I think there will be a lot of substitution of the humble checkout bag as people will then need to purchase bin liners and so forth for hygiene reasons.

Looking at the history, in 2003 the Australian Retailers Association developed a code of practice with a commitment to reduce plastic bag usage by 50 per cent by the end of 2005. The target was not reached but plastic bag usage was reduced by 45 per cent, so it only fell shy by some 5 per cent. One would think that, once the voluntary measures have been extinguished, it is time to bring in other things—the stick approach, if you like. The Liberal Party's formal position is that it prefers a levy rather than an outright ban. Indeed, there are three options: the status quo, the levy, or an all-out ban.

We have heard much about injuries to wildlife which, obviously, is a huge concern. However, there are also issues that a lot of people in the community are not aware of: for example, the fact that the so-called biobags (which I note will be banned) actually break down into smaller pieces of plastic and are of greater concern because they can enter the food stream via leaching into watertables and the marine environment. I am pleased that they will not be exempt and, in any case, because of hygiene reasons, if they are going to break down then they are also hazardous.

The Liberal Party believes in choice. It does not believe that people should, in some blanket way, be banned from having a choice, particularly as there is much research showing that up to 80 per cent of these bags are reused. Indeed, there is a trial taking place in Victoria of a 10 per cent levy in three regions: Fountain Gate—which, of course, has been made famous by the television show Kath and Kim—Wangaratta and Warrnambool. A survey by KPMG has indicated that some 60 per cent of customers reuse their plastic bags as bin liners. That, of course, does not include people who might reuse them for other purposes. If I have not mentioned it here I have certainly mentioned to some of my colleagues that my sister's child-care centre is always asking parents to bring them in because they use them for the disposal of nappies.

The survey also showed that, of the customers who reused their bags as bin liners, 57 per cent expected to buy more bin liners as a result of the change. This trial has been an outstanding success with a reduction in plastic bag use of 79 per cent.

Other parts of the survey show that, during the 10 per cent levy trial, green bag sales rates increased by more than 50 times in week one, and then declined over the four-week period as customers began to reuse the green bags purchased in week one. The trial showed that plastic bag demand is highly elastic, with the 10 cent charge making customers re-evaluate their desire to use plastic bags. Of the customers surveyed, 99 per cent responded that they had tried to use reusable bags, with 70 per cent claiming they were able to maintain this practice and 87 per cent of customers indicating that they would use reusable bags if the 10 cent charge became permanent.

If these bags are banned, what is the alternative? Honourable members may recall that I raised a question with the then minister for environment about whether the government would mandate an alternative, particularly in relation to the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association, which has reversed its previous opposition to the banning of plastic bags, mainly for occupational health and safety reasons. I think it is important that the alternatives should be explored by the government because of the practicality of the design of checkouts. I think it would provide some certainty and some indication to the retail industry about what it can expect and what it should be designing and beginning to implement, because it has not been given a very long period of time to make these changes.

I have been provided with a report by a consultancy by the name of Nolan ITU (now part of Hyder Consulting) dated December 2002, and it provides all these different options. The report makes for interesting reading, because the bags have different capacities. The current plastic bag, which is a single HDPE, has a relative capacity of one, which is six to eight items; the PP fibre, which is the 'green' bag, is 1.2, so it has 20 per cent capacity; and the calico-type bag has a further 10 per cent capacity. The Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association has a concern that the greater capacity of the bags will mean additional weight for employees to lift.

The report, entitled 'Plastic Shopping Bags and Reusables—A Comparison', looks at some of the footprints of these various bags. The single HDPE has a greenhouse CO2 equivalent of 6.08, which is based on some 52 shopping trips a year; the biodegradable starch-based bag comes out at 6.61, which is higher; the paper bag comes out at 11.8; and the PP fibre green bag does very well in that it is 1.96.

One of the other ironies of the proposal is that the so-called boutique bags, which people would be familiar with as those bags used in department stores and so forth, will not be banned. These bags have a much thicker density and therefore do not fall within the ban, although they do have handles. If we compare these bags with the much maligned so-called single-use plastic bag (which is about six on this measure), those boutique bags, which really are single-use bags (I have cupboards stuffed full with them, and I never reuse them), are 29.8, which is five times the rate, yet those boutique bags are not being banned. I am quite happy to share this research with any of my colleagues who might be interested. All of this research and information really reinforces the claim we have made that this measure is merely targeting a fairly narrow part of the litter stream.

The study in Ireland has also been quoted and, before the research came out from Victoria, this was the latest research that had been quoted, going back to March 2002. Ireland introduced a levy of 15 eurocents and the reduction in use fell by some 90 per cent.

Not surprisingly, a number of business groups have expressed their opposition to this, in particular, Business SA, which believes that it will affect the state's competitiveness, will impact significantly on smaller retailers and will not reduce the overall level of waste produced by our community.

The Independent Supermarket Council of South Australia, while supporting a graduated introduction of a ban, has raised a number of concerns in relation to banning plastic bags, including health, hygiene and the eventual disposal of reusable green bags. The State Retailers Association has expressed similar concerns.

In short, we do not believe that the alternatives, which are the cornstarch bags, have been sufficiently available on the market to meet this ban by 1 January. They would really be the alternative that everybody would look to, but they are certainly much more expensive. There are concerns about hygiene, about occupational health and safety, and about the fact that this really is a rather tokenistic approach to the matter.

I would also like to share with honourable members the information that Target South Australia will actually introduce its own regime from 1 December 2008, which (surprise, surprise!) will mean that alternatives are available but at a cost. The compostable bags will cost 10¢, and then there will be a range of other bags ranging from $1 to $2.99.

A number of retailers, particularly organisations such as Bunnings, have demonstrated that they are prepared to get involved in reducing waste in response to community concern, but we do not think that plastic bags should be banned outright, and we will not support this bill.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (16:37): I will make some brief remarks in support of this bill. South Australia has been addressing the problem of waste for a long time with creative and world-leading solutions. This bill is another example of that leadership, and it will prohibit the supply of lightweight supermarket-style checkout plastic bags. The ban will reduce littering, prevent environmental harm and improve resource efficiency.

The estimated national consumption of plastic bags for 2007 was 4.24 billion, of which 40 million were estimated to have ended up as unsightly litter on our nation's beaches, in our parks, streets and on our highways. They also kill marine life and damage waterways. Most go to landfill where they take many years to break down, contributing to greenhouse emissions as they do.

In comparison with reusable green bags, lightweight plastic bags have been found to be less efficient in terms of resources and energy used in manufacturing. South Australia has long been a pacesetter on environmental issues. More than 30 years ago, the South Australian government enacted the container deposit legislation, which introduced a refund on drink containers, and that legislation was opposed at the time, too, by major retailers.

That has been an overwhelming success in reducing litter and encouraging recycling. Now, once again, the government wants to lead the way on another environmental issue. While South Australia cannot solve the plastic bag problems of the entire country, South Australians can show leadership in our own backyard by removing lightweight plastic shopping bags from our lives.

The bill describes the product to be regulated (plastic shopping bags) and a policy objective—avoidance of waste. The bill provides that a retailer must not provide a plastic shopping bag to a customer as a means of carrying goods purchased or to be purchased from a retailer.

Bags that will be subject to the ban are those made from polyethylene which are used or intended for the use for carrying or transporting retail goods, which have handles and which are less than 35 microns in thickness. Other thicknesses or types of bag could be prescribed by regulation in the future to ensure that the intent of the bill is preserved.

Barrier bags, or bags on a roll, will be excluded from the ban. These are bags without handles, those one would usually see in the supermarket fruit and vegetable aisles. They are typically used to hold unpackaged foods—for example, loose fruit and vegetables, nuts, breads and cakes—or products that may leak or contaminate other foods if not placed in a barrier bag. Boutique-style reusable plastic bags are also excluded from the ban. These are not subject to the ban because they are made of a heavier material than conventional shopping bags and are designed to be reused on a number of occasions—despite the Hon. Ms Lensink telling us that she does not.

The government's intention is that this prohibition will come into effect on 4 May 2009 after a transitional period. This proposed transitional period is designed to get retailers and their customers prepared for the ban. The intention is for the proposed transitional period to begin on 1 January 2009, and during the proposed transitional period retailers who supply plastic bags will also be required to supply alternatives—such as reusable bags or biodegradable bags that meet the Australian standard. Signage requirements will also apply during this transition phase to help retailers and their customers adjust to the new regime. The signage will remind customers that a plastic bag phase-out is in place and will notify them that alternatives to plastic bags are available.

A public information and education program will be undertaken in the lead up to the ban coming into place. Occupational health, safety and welfare education will be included to assist retail staff to be ready to manage alternative shopping bags. A plastic bags phase-out task force has been established, chaired by Zero Waste SA, which comprises representatives from the Environment Protection Authority, Restaurant and Catering SA, Keep South Australia Beautiful, the State Retailers Association, the Local Government Association, the Consumers Association of SA, the Conservation Council, the SDA, and the Hardware Association of South Australia. Throughout the lead up to the phase-out the task force has advised the government of impacts on industry.

There are those who call for a voluntary scheme to reduce the impact of plastic bags, as we have just heard. Trials overseas—most notably in Ireland—have shown that voluntary schemes are only partially successful. A 10¢ charge on a plastic bag (which is what some are proposing) will reduce plastic bag usage, but it is less effective than a ban. Under such schemes there will still be millions of plastic bags in our waterways and landfills, and the overseas experience shows that the effectiveness of the charge is eroded over time. People simply get used to paying for bags and usage creeps up. Such a charge will not encourage one manufacturer to come up with a biodegradable alternative.

Many South Australian shoppers have already made the change to recyclable bags, and they should be congratulated. At any check-out on any day around the state you will see people with their recyclable bags doing the right thing. In fact, a recent Messenger newspaper survey in Adelaide revealed—

Members interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. B.V. Finnigan): Honourable members, please keep the hubbub down.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Thank you for your protection, sir. A recent Messenger newspaper survey in Adelaide revealed that 51 per cent of people do not use plastic bags for their weekly shopping. The federal member for Makin, Tony Zappia, recently undertook a survey in his area and found overwhelming support; 88 per cent of nearly 2,000 respondents said it was important to remove plastic shopping bags from the environment. In Victoria, a trial involving the state government and the Australian National Retailers Association found that 86 per cent of consumers supported the initiatives to reduce plastic bag usage.

There are a number of good corporate citizens in the state already setting an example. Borders bookshop imposes a plastic bag charge as a way of making customers think about whether they really need one; Bunnings does not offer any plastic bags at all; and today Target has announced that its stores in South Australia will no longer offer customers single use plastic bags from 1 December 2008. So much for the claim that industry cannot or has not had enough time to adjust to the changes. I understand that instead of offering plastic bags Target will offer a compostable bag for 10¢ or reusable bags starting from $1. If the Liberals took any notice of Target, or the other corporates who are heading down this track, they would see that they will get the best of both worlds—a ban on plastic bags and a levy on compostable bags, which is partly what they are calling for.

Community sentiment is clearly moving quickly against the plastic bag, and I suppose in some ways this parliament is merely catching up with that community sentiment. South Australia has been a world leader in tackling environmental issues and social change, and we are not afraid to show leadership in our own backyard. China, India, parts of Africa, Taiwan, San Francisco, France and Italy have already banned these bags or are about to. We lead the nation on a whole range of green measures: solar power, wind power and a refund on our recyclables. Now we can lead the nation in doing something about plastic bag litter.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK (16:45): The ubiquitous plastic bag was not always so. Some of us in this place are old enough to remember when they first appeared in the mid-1950s.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: Yes; some of us are that old! The bags were given free on a box of soap powder; I am not sure whether it was Rinso or Surf. My mother bought Lux Flakes, and the kids whose mother bought Surf (or was it Rinso?) could come to school with their sandwiches in waxed paper in a plastic bag. The bags were about A4 size and clear on one side and white with printed coloured polka dots on the other. You could get white with yellow polka dots, white with red ones, white with green ones or white with blue ones. I could not convince my mother to buy the product that had the free plastic bag, and I felt incredibly disadvantaged that I did not have one.

I mention this because 50 years ago plastic bags were a unique and prized item. We have now got to the point where they are taken for granted, if not a nuisance. They are certainly not given any value by consumers, and I think it is a pity, because the feedstock from which most of the plastic is made comes from the petrochemical industry; in other words, we are talking about the use of oil, which is a non-renewable resource. So, in using and throwing out plastic bags, we are effectively discarding a large source of embedded energy. We are not treating it with the respect we ought.

In addition, I believe that there are some severe negative values in terms of the pollution that comes from plastic bags: the awful sight of plastic bags blowing about in the wind and the problem of marine pollution or of animals eating them and, in some cases, actually dying as a consequence. There is just shocking waste. If you go to a place like Wingfield and see the bulldozers turning over and flattening the waste, you will see the enormous amount of plastic that is regarded as waste, rather than a resource.

My party, the Democrats, has felt very strongly about plastic bags for a long time. In the lead-up to the 2002 election, part of our waste management policy was a promise to introduce legislation to put a deposit on plastic bags. I introduced the bill in 2003 with a 15¢ deposit. At that time, I argued that in about 1967, when plastic bags first started appearing in shops, we had to pay 5¢ for them (they were not given out for free), and 15¢ seemed to me to be a reasonable amount, compared with the 5¢ we paid in the sixties.

This bill has a very different approach to my bill, although both are aimed at reducing some of the plastic in our litter stream. I welcome the bill. To some extent, the South Australian government has had to go out on a limb with this measure, and the industry has fought very much against it—surprise, surprise! We have seen that in regard to container deposit legislation, when South Australia went out on a limb. Whenever any other state has attempted to introduce a similar scheme, the industry has come in and lobbied very intensely, and each time it has managed to prevent it from happening. So, if we're going out on a limb, I guess we can expect a reaction from the industry.

As someone who chooses not to use plastic bags, I go through a regular conversation at the checkout which goes like this. As I start to take out the things from my shopping trolley I turn to the checkout attendant and say, 'No bags, thank you,' and there is almost always a surprised, 'No bags?' question in response. Then I have to nod my head and say, 'No bags.' Despite that, in some cases I still find the shop assistant putting my groceries into a plastic bag and I have to stop them, and I think that is because most people do expect the plastic bags.

I recognise that this bill will not address all plastic bags; it is only some of them, so it is limited, but despite that the industry is resisting, and only a couple of hours ago I received an industry email about it. I could not believe that they were proudly boasting that it is a good thing that these plastic bags do not break down in landfill. Their argument is that a lot of the stuff in landfill creates methane and that therefore plastic bags not breaking down to produce methane is a good thing. I think that just shows what an incorrigible industry we are dealing with here.

The fact is that, if you look at the sort of soil that is created in the breakdown of everything else that is in that waste, those plastic bags persist and persist and persist. You cannot use it for clean fill; you certainly cannot use it for putting on your garden; that soil is contaminated forever.

This bill is limited. It will apply only to some plastic bags, and it is disappointing to hear the opposition say it will oppose it. I think the Hon. Michelle Lensink said that her party supports choice, but having the choice to pollute is not really a very good choice. Although the bill itself is limited, the Democrats recognise the value that is there and the beginnings of a path that we will tread in this regard. I indicate support for the second reading and also my keenness to see it progressed.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.

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