HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-11-13 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

PLASTIC SHOPPING BAGS (WASTE AVOIDANCE) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 11 November 2008. Page 583.)

The Hon. M. PARNELL (11:46): The Greens support this bill. The bill will ban retail outlets from providing single-use plastic bags to their customers to carry away goods. The bill is a good initiative. It will reduce littering, prevent environmental harm and improve resource efficiency. I note that the bill, to a large extent, follows the recommendations of the 53rd report of the Environment, Resources and Development Committee dated 5 April 2005.

Importantly, the bill applies equally to all types of shops and stores. The bill exempts barrier bags such as the lightweight fruit and vegetable bags. The measures are to be phased in to minimise the impact on retailers. The introduction of these changes will be accompanied by an education campaign, and substantial penalties are imposed for breaches of these new laws. Those provisions are all consistent with the recommendations of the ERD Committee over three years ago.

The evidence clearly shows that the array of disadvantages of continuing to use plastic bags outweighs their convenience. We know that plastic bags can take 1,000 years or more to break down—the research of Planet Ark has shown us that—and we also know that these bags are, in the main, produced from non-renewable resources. Plastic bags of the type banned by this bill might not be a huge proportion of the litter stream—it may be around 2 per cent—but they are highly visible and highly dangerous. We know that they pollute our waterways, clog drains and kill marine life. On a global scale, tens of thousands of sea birds, whales, seals and turtles are killed by plastic bags annually.

I am reminded of the last Adelaide Fringe festival where one of the performances, aimed specifically at children, involved a juggler. He was juggling these plastic bags—which is no mean feat, given their flimsy nature. The story that this juggler told as he juggled the bags is: this is what they look like, floating in the water column, to a turtle. It was quite majestic to see three of these bags floating in the air, and he would catch them and toss them up again. We know they are dangerous and, thank goodness, some of our entertainers are helping to bring that message to the next generation. We know that plastic bags have potentially dire consequences for livestock, agriculture and, also, our tourism industry.

In spite of voluntary measures, such as the agreed Code of Practice for the Management of Plastic Bags, we still use 6 billion HDPE bags annually, which is around 345 bags per person per year, so it is nearly one bag a day for every person in this country.

When I came to South Australia in the late 1980s, my first political act was to write a letter to the editor about cycling; but my second political act, in conjunction with my wife, was to write letters to all the supermarkets, because we had come from Great Britain where they were charging for plastic bags, and it seemed a very simple initiative that could be used here. Rather than engaging in the parliamentary political process, we chose to write to the supermarkets, and were promptly ignored.

I also note that this bill is similar to a Greens bill introduced by the member for Mitchell in 2003. In fact, I think there were three attempts. At the first attempt on 2 April 2003 the bill lapsed in the House of Assembly when parliament was prorogued. That bill proposed a pricing mechanism (a minimum price of 25¢). Another Greens bill on 2 October 2003 was withdrawn and sent to the ERD Committee. That bill proposed an outright ban, which is very similar to the bill we have before us. The following year, a third Greens bill of 10 November 2004 also lapsed in the House of Assembly when parliament was prorogued, and that was the same as the October 2003 bill. So, the Greens have been calling for measures such as this in this parliament for five years.

I think this bill deserves support and, if we were to get it through and implement it, I think, as South Australians, we should feel some small level of pride that we are leading the way on this issue, much the same as we have led this country with container deposit legislation. I note again that the Greens support this bill.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (11:53): I rise to make a contribution on the second reading of this bill. In so doing I am pleased to canvass the subjects that relate to the shopping habits of the Lucas family (including me) and people I know. As I have indicated on previous occasions, I am happy to concede that I may be a minority—I do not know—in relation to my shopping habits. I will religiously ensure that I never purchase anything such as free-range eggs or free-range chickens. I am always looking for the battery ones. I will not purchase anything which advertises GM free or something similar. I definitely ensure that there is gluten in my biscuits. As we have seen in relation to recent developments, some of the initiatives we see in marketing are excuses to charge consumers significantly more, in my view, for basic products (such as eggs and chickens) and a variety of other products (such as tuna) on our shopping shelves. I do not pretend that I am typical of the majority, although I am not the insignificant minority as some might otherwise believe in relation to my shopping habits.

In relation to plastic bags, to the extent that it can the Lucas household tries to use the green bags where possible. On a good number of occasions we are avid consumers of what is called by this legislation the single-use plastic bag. On some occasions you are not doing a big weekly shop—where you remember to take the half a dozen or, in the Lucas case, sometimes up to a dozen green bags which might be required for the extra big weekly shop—and you pop in for an item and you do not have the green bag with you. If you happen to be on a walk on a weekend and you call into the supermarket to get bread and milk to take home, you use the supposedly single-use plastic bag (which will be banned by this legislation) with handles on it so that, as you walk back home, it is a matter of convenience. On other occasions, if you call in after work to get bread or milk, or whatever it happens to be, the supposed single-use plastic bag is used. Our household uses the green bag whenever it can, but accepts the convenience and the logic of what is supposedly the single-use plastic bag.

Our household—I suspect like many others—disagrees strenuously with those who push this particular legislation that the supposed single-use plastic bag is, indeed, what they call it. As a number of speakers have acknowledged, many people pile the single-use plastic bags in a corner of their laundry or kitchen and use them for a variety of purposes, including as bin liners, and the Hon. Ms Lensink talked about a child-care centre that a family member attends requesting them for disposable nappies and other similar purposes. Certainly, many people use them to collect dog litter—if I can put it that way—whether it be dropped in their own garden or when taking a dog for a daily or weekly walk and doing the right thing in terms of collecting any litter. There are many other purposes for which this type of bag is used.

The supposed single-use plastic bag is used by some members of our family as a lunch container on one or two occasions, where rolls or sandwiches, chips and fruit boxes, or whatever else, are thrown into a plastic bag and, with the convenience of the handles, taken to school and, in more recent times, to work as a convenient carry item. There are many other uses for the supposed single-use plastic bag. As members in both chambers have highlighted, the notion that drives this legislation—that this is supposedly a single-use plastic bag which we all, as soon as we get it, throw away immediately—is far removed from reality in terms of its usage.

Other members have highlighted this is just one component of the issue of plastic bags. I understand from reading the contributions of the Hons Ms Lensink and Mr Hunter, and other members, that the vast number of plastic bags in the fruit and vegetable sections will not be banned. I am assuming, also, that the plastic bags which most of us purchase to put in our big bins will not be banned and, also, many other varieties of plastic bags will not be banned.

One of the questions we will have the opportunity to pursue in the committee stage, or the minister may respond during the second reading, is that, if a retailer was to arrange the manufacture of plastic bags larger than those used in the fruit and vegetable section—that is, there are no handles on them, but you snap them off the roll at the perforated edge—the supermarket, under this legislation, will be able to allow customers like me to use those sorts of plastic bags at the customer checkout.

The consumer—if they wanted to—could put a tag or a rubber band on the top of it and (as long as there is enough length in the plastic bag) carry it in that way without handles. I am seeking clarification from the minister as to whether that would be legal under the government's legislation and whether or not, for those of us who want to assist our supermarkets to allow the continued use of these plastic bags, the government's legislation would prevent that sort of plastic bag being made available by a supermarket to those of us who are quite happy to continue to use it.

As with many other pieces of legislation, there are always wildly differing views expressed to members in terms of the particular positions pushed. Clearly, the views of the proponents of the legislation have been quoted often in support of the legislation. I place on the record some correspondence, which I presume all members received, from people on the other side of the debate in relation to this. I will not read all of the contribution; however, I will identify the source: the National Association of Retail Grocers of Australia, the senior policy adviser Gerard van Rijswijk—in an email to all members (I assume), on 11 November of this week.

The association indicated that it had been complaining for a long time to national and state government agencies that much of the information that is provided in this sort of debate is—in their words—far from factual, but certainly at the very least contestable. I intend to at least put on the public record its rebuttal of some of the claims that have been made. I hasten to say that, at this stage, I am not in a position to put myself up as the final arbiter in terms of who is accurate and who is not, but I think it is only fair to place on the public record the rebuttal of some of the claims that have been made by proponents of the legislation.

First, I refer to this initial estimate in terms of the total number of plastic bags that we are talking about. I note that the minister, Mr Weatherill, in the House of Assembly, said:

The estimated national consumption of plastic bags was 3.93 billion.

I note that the Hon. Mr Hunter—I assume acting on information provided by the same government—indicated that the number was not 3.93 billion but 4.24 billion, and also I noted today that I think it was the Hon. Mr Parnell who quoted a figure that it is not that but 6 billion, so clearly there are wildly divergent estimates of the national consumption. I quote the response from NARGA to the quotes made by the government on this: that is, that the estimated national consumption 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. NARGA states:

This number overstates the true situation as the consultant has not properly accounted for other products imported under the same customs code. A corrected assessment is required. It would show that the retail sector has exceeded its 50 per cent reduction target. This figure is pure guesswork and is derived—

It is specifically referring here to the supposed claim that 40 million bags are estimated to have ended up as unsightly litter on our beaches and in our parks and streets. The email continues:

This figure is pure guesswork and is derived from an early consultant report which guessed that between 0.8 and 1 per cent of bags were littered. The figure has never been substantiated. It fails a reality check. If so many bags were in fact littered, there would be over 1 billion bags in the litter stream as bags have been in use for over 30 years. Clearly this is not the case. Plastic bags make up 0.6 per cent of litter according to the latest KESAB survey.

The next point that NARGA seeks to rebut is the statement by the Hon. Mr Weatherill on behalf of the government that the policy objective of the legislation was the avoidance of waste. NARGA's response was, 'Plastic shopping bags are not a significant component of the waste stream…' I interpose at this stage and refer members to the statement from the Hon. Mr Parnell that, frankly, conceded that that was the case. The Hon. Mr Parnell used words to the effect that he acknowledged that plastic bags were not a significant component of the waste stream; nevertheless, he went on to give his reasons why he believed that the bill should be supported. At the very least, what NARGA is indicating there would appear to have gathered support from even some supporters of the legislation, such as the Greens and the Hon. Mr Parnell, in particular. Returning to the quote from NARGA:

Plastic shopping bags are not a significant component of the waste stream and, in fact, assist with the orderly collection of waste from households. Many are reused as bin liners and garbage bags. This reduces spillage of waste during collection activity—reducing litter associated with waste collection. It is anticipated that a ban on plastic bags will see a reduction in the bagging of waste and a corresponding increase in litter.

The next claim from the Hon. Mr Weatherill that NARGA seeks to rebut is that they also kill marine life. The response from NARGA is:

Reports of marine debris on marine life have been deliberately misquoted in order to implicate plastic shopping bags. Whilst plastics do impact on marine life and, in a small proportion of cases these plastics are bags, they are NOT shopping bags. The most frequently quoted study referring to '100,000 marine animals', in fact refers to birds killed by fishing activities.

I too have heard the many claims of these bags killing marine life. I think we have heard them before in this chamber in answers to Dorothy Dix questions, so I am interested to hear in the minister's response the evidence in relation to the significance of the shopping bags that are going to be banned in terms of the numbers that end up killing marine life.

I am not going to go through all of the NARGA response. I am sure other members have it, and it is certainly available if other members want it, but there are two or three other areas that I do want to cover because they do, point-blank, just say that the claims from the government are not true, so I seek the government's response to this rebuttal. The government, through Mr Weatherill, said:

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

NARGA's response was:

Not true. The figure relates to previous estimates of bag volumes, does not take into account their replacement with purchased bags and does not recognise the following facts:

HDPE plastic is made from material usually flared to the atmosphere—i.e. its manufacture reduces greenhouse gas emission because less material is flared.

Disposing of rubbish in landfill contained in plastic bags reduces emissions from the landfill because water access is reduced.

The next claim from the minister was:

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

NARGA's response was:

Not true, although the energy figure represents the energy and material used in the manufacture of HDPE plastic bags is not saved if the alternative use is flaring this material to the atmosphere.

Another claim to which NARGA has raised objection is the claim made by the member for Morialta, Ms Simmons, whom I have heard unkindly referred to as the Belinda Neal of the state parliament. Ms Simmons said in this debate:

These bags take between 15 to 1,000 years to break down in the environment. In my latest newsletter I have a photo of a turtle dying from eating a plastic bag, which can be clearly seen in its mouth.

Obviously, that is a pretty serious claim being made by the member for Morialta, that is, that she has photographic evidence of a turtle dying from a plastic bag, which can be clearly seen in its mouth. She has obviously put this in her newsletter to her electorate, I assume in an effort to get her constituents to support her and the government's initiatives in relation to plastic bags. NARGA's response is that what Ms Simmons, the member for Morialta, has said is simply not true. NARGA states:

Breakdown times are dependent on bag composition and climate. Bags do not contain a UV stabiliser.

But the more important rebuttal by NARGA is as follows:

The photo referred to is shown below—

and there is a photo of a lovely looking turtle with a plastic bag poking out of its mouth, and the member for Morialta is obviously saying that it is dying from eating the plastic bag. NARGA then states:

The plastic in its mouth is NOT a plastic shopping bag—

contrary to the claim made by the member for Morialta—

The photo was staged at the Melbourne Zoo.

If NARGA's claim is true—that the member for Morialta has used her global resources to distribute a photo of a turtle with what she says is a plastic bag coming out of its mouth which she says resulted in the death of that turtle—and if the photo she has used was staged at the Melbourne Zoo for dramatic effect, which is obviously a most serious claim being made against the member for Morialta, this is an issue that will need to be pursued with the minister in charge of the bill in this chamber. It will also obviously need to be pursued with the member for Morialta, because it is a most serious charge being made by NARGA.

As I have said, if the member for Morialta can prove that what she has said is correct and what NARGA has said is inaccurate, it is most important that she gets onto the public record in the parliament, or perhaps responds to media inquiries, in relation to this matter. She has not attracted favourable publicity in recent times. Certainly, it would be a serious blow to her credibility if it was found that this claim she has made and distributed (one would assume using taxpayer-funded resources) to her electorate was untrue and that NARGA's claim that the photo was actually staged at the Melbourne Zoo for dramatic effect was accurate.

One of the concerns I have with this debate is that we have proponents who, for their own reasons—their own political gratification in their electorate—might be prepared to make, certainly at the very least, extravagant claims about the value of the legislation. However, this is much more serious than that. It is not just an extravagant claim: it may well be a most serious claim which is untrue, and it would reflect very poorly on the member for Morialta, Ms Simmons, if indeed that turned out to be the case.

With those comments, I indicate my support for the position the Hon. Ms Lensink has put on behalf of the party, which is that we oppose the legislation. Speaking as an individual, I indicate that I am not yet convinced about one of the alternatives that has been flagged, that is, the notion of forcing me as a consumer who does not mind using plastic bags in the shopping centre, for the reasons I have outlined, to pay extra for the convenience of doing so (that is, the levy proposition), but I accept that, potentially, that is a proposition that will need to be debated at some future time. In the end, it ought to be judged on the merits of whether or not it achieves the purpose that its supporters might indicate would justify its introduction as a policy option. With that, I indicate my opposition to this particular proposition from the government.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (12:15): I rise to indicate Family First's position on this bill. We obviously have considered this matter long and hard and consulted widely with various groups, consumers and the body that will be substantially affected by this measure, and that is the industry itself—that is, the industry that manufactures plastic bags, and also the supermarket/shopping industry, where the bags are put in the hands of customers.

Let me say at the outset that my personal view is that we live in an era of almost environmental extremism at some level. We tend to be concerned about things that, in some ways, really do not justify the level of noise that is made about them. For example, I am constantly intrigued by forecasts of temperature rises of X degrees over a 50 or 100-year period, when they seem to not be able to get the temperature right for the next week with any degree of reliability. I am often amused by these sorts of things. That does not make me sceptical, but I certainly approach such matters with a sense of trying to examine the real evidence that exists for these sorts of things. I think that is looking at the bigger picture.

Having said that, I think it is incumbent upon all of us (and particularly elected members of parliament) to put our best foot forward and take practical measures to protect the environment. As I said, I am not necessarily a fan of the big picture or scaremongering, which it can turn into sometimes, but I am—and Family First certainly is, as a party—committed to taking reasonable steps to make a difference in the here and now. That having been said, we consulted widely and have come to the position, after that consultation that, on balance, it is probably wise to support this bill. We are of the view that practical, short-term measures that can be taken to improve the environment or reduce the risk to the environment are ones that should be supported. For that reason, we will be supporting this bill.

I would like to outline a few of the reasons behind that, if I may, and make a brief contribution this afternoon. Supermarkets have now been voluntarily trialling schemes to reduce polyethylene bags since 2003. However, those trials have been largely unsuccessful in reducing our use of plastic bags at supermarkets. A consensus was reached nationally in 2006 among those bodies that the voluntary schemes did not appear to work. I note with interest that only this week Target has come out and imposed a voluntary ban upon itself in the use of plastic bags in its stores. So, it appears that the industry is heading that way regardless of the legislation.

Jurisdictions across Australia have now been weighing up whether to ban or impose a levy on polyethylene plastic bags. Victoria is currently trialling a charge, at the moment, which, in its first week, saw a 1,400 per cent increase in reusable bags. There was a clear swing away from the polyethylene to reusable bags which, I think, in essence, is the thrust of the opposition argument. There appeared to be a consensus developing earlier this year, but the government now believes that it may take several more years for a national scheme and, hence, its decision to move alone, that is, for South Australia to take the lead on this issue, if you like. However, we are not alone. Many other countries with a similar problem regarding the use of large quantities of plastic bags, such as China and even Bangladesh (I was surprised to find out), are opting for total bans in this regard. Indeed, Los Angeles and San Francisco in the United States have recently imposed bans on plastic bags in their retail sector.

During a briefing on this bill the government indicated that it preferred the ban because it sends a clear signal, and charges imposed on bags, according to the Irish experience, apparently tend to be factored in by shoppers over time; that is, in Ireland, where a levy was imposed on plastic bags, our understanding is that, whilst it was very successful initially, over time the numbers of plastic bags actually got up to the levels that they were prior to the levy being imposed. So, whilst it was successful initially, we understand that it was not successful in the longer term. Perhaps one of the real reasons that the government is heading in the direction of a total ban is that it does not see the levy as being effective in the long term. Certainly, as I read it, that has been the Irish experience.

Clearly, we have to do something. I think the Hon. Mr Lucas made a very strong point when he said that the numbers of bags are grossly exaggerated, whether it is 4 billion, 5 billion, 6 billion—we hear different numbers. I think the reality is that we do not know how many bags end up harming the environment. However, I think it is reasonable for us to take the position that, clearly, there is some harm, regardless of what the number is. I think if we reduce that number it will be of benefit. Clearly, we had to do something. If we use something like 4 billion plastic shopping bags per year that, apparently, can take 100 years to decompose, then most people would agree that that is not beneficial for our environment.

Some estimates are that 30 to 50 million bags find their way into our ecosystem. Some scientists talk about there now being a 'plastic soup'—to use their words—in some parts of the ocean where the currents converge. Again, I wonder whether that is overstating the problem but, nonetheless, I think that if we can do something then we should. We owe the environment more than that and, given that alternatives exist, Family First believes that we owe it to our children to ban the use of those bags, as the government is proposing. Alternatives do exist in the form of biodegradable bags, which will only cost a few cents, as I understand it. Indeed, as the use of those becomes increasingly common, then the per unit cost of the bags will decrease.

I would like to give special mention to Modbury Foodland, which is currently trialling the use of compostable bags. We would like to see a list of acceptable biodegradable bags being determined by the minister in regulation. One of the complaints about biodegradable bags is that they use more resources and potentially have a larger carbon footprint than single-use bags, which are predominantly produced relatively cleanly compared to those which use petroleum fuels in their construction.

I am grateful that the minister will incorporate one of our suggestions as a proposed amendment, regarding the definition of compostable bags. That being said, I think we have made our position clear. We will support the bill. I think, on balance, there is more to be gained by supporting the bill than opposing it. As I said, though, I believe we have become a society that perhaps overstates the damage that can be caused, although in the case of plastic bags we believe there is a case to take some action and, for that reason, we will support the bill.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for State/Local Government Relations, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Government Enterprises, Minister Assisting the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Energy) (12:23): In summing up, I would like to thank honourable members for their very valuable contribution to this important piece of legislation. The debate has raised a number of issues: whether to take action at all, whether there is sufficient evidence to provide a basis for moving against the plastic bag and whether South Australia should go it alone.

If there is sufficient basis for taking action, there can be no real case for not acting on our own. We have a fine tradition in South Australia of pursuing groundbreaking environmental legislation. We should not be unnecessarily slowed by waiting for a national approach which may or may not eventuate. It is important that we try to reach a national agreement and we have done that, but the failure to this point in time to achieve that should not prevent us from moving forward if there is a proper case.

At the environment ministers' meeting last week, ministers recognised the potential to pursue a national approach to reduce plastic bag use that builds on voluntary efforts of supermarkets and the actions of various jurisdictions to reduce such use but, yet again, no consensus on the nature of that national approach was reached.

Meanwhile, the case for intervention is compelling, contrary to the suggestion by the Hon. Michelle Lensink that plastic bags are a minor environmental issue. The life-cycle costs associated with these lightweight plastic bags going to landfill makes action necessary. In 2007, a comparison of existing life-cycle analysis revealed 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 would deliver significant environmental gains, and they have been outlined in the second reading explanation. There are clear life-cycle benefits independent of the amenity issues and the damage to wildlife, which are more difficult to quantify.

An issue was raised regarding the absence from the proposed ban of department store bags. These are not subject to the proposed ban because they are not used in anything like the volume that we see with single-use plastic bags. We do not see them in our litter stream as we do single-use plastic bags and, unlike single-use plastic bags, many of them are designed to be reused, given their heavier construction. Many of them are recyclable and some of them contain recycled materials, and I am pleased to note that that tends to be an increasing trend. At this point in time, the case for banning them is not compelling in the way it is with single-use plastic bags.

Another issue that has been raised relates to the concern that the proposed ban on these single-use plastic bags will simply lead to a reliance on other types of plastic bags, such as boutique bags or bin-liners, for instance, However, the evidence from many overseas examples simply does not bear this out. There is likely to be a small increase in the use of these substitutes but nothing like the volume of single-use plastic bags that the community would otherwise have used. Moreover, this argument overlooks the increasing availability of compostable bags. The bill exempts from the ban compostable bags that meet the relevant Australian standards—essentially, that they compost within 120 days. Over recent months, Zero Waste has identified seven types of bag that meet the standard already, so there has been a very good market response in the lead-up to the proposed ban.

The publicity around South Australia's proposed action appears to have galvanised suppliers of this product to seek to get into the South Australian market. I am very encouraged by that response. The bill as originally introduced in this chamber in June was designed to ensure that these compostable bags could be used as substitutes for single-use plastic bags but, following discussions about the bill with Family First, the provision regarding the use of these bags has been improved so as to remove any doubt about the availability of these bags. I wish to put on record the government's gratitude for the constructive way in which Family First has engaged with us on the bill which has enabled us to improve this important piece of legislation.

A further issue of concern is that it has been proposed that a fee charged on plastic bags would be a better solution than a ban. There are a number of responses to this. First, it is simply not as effective. It will reduce the use of plastic bags, but there will still be millions of bags going to landfill and entering the litter stream. Secondly, the Irish experience referred to by the Hon. Michelle Lensink and, I think, by the Hon. Dennis Hood shows that the charging of a fee becomes less effective over time. They have recently had to lift the fee dramatically to try to halt a slide in non-use of plastic bags. Thirdly, what it will not do, which a ban will, is provide incentives to bring to the market compostable bags, and we see that there has already been a considerable response in the marketplace. Lastly, why would we impose this cost impost, which in effect would end up being a windfall for retailers as we do not have the capacity to raise a levy or direct those fees that would be raised via a cost impost to go to a good purpose? The fees raised would simply accrue to the retailer.

The last issue of concern relates to the experience of retail workers whereby the greater use of heavy duty reusable bags may increase their health and safety risks. We take these risks seriously, which is why the SDA and Zero Waste commissioned a study into the possible effects of the ban on retail workers. That study came up with a series of recommendations around workplace design and practice, which were discussed with SafeWork SA.

As part of the recent changes to the bill we have inserted a provision for a review of the legislation and its implementation after two years. We propose to have a health and safety audit conducted, particularly of the implementation of the study recommendations, and to have the results of that audit fed into the review process, which will of course not be confined to the audit. It will enable us to review the implementation of the ban generally and in the light of both technological developments and regulatory developments elsewhere.

Finally, I address the community sentiment, as indicated by the Hon. Ian Hunter. Community sentiment appears to be strengthening against the plastic bag. The community has shown that, through the SA and Victorian trials mentioned by the Hon. Michelle Lensink, it is ready for a phase out commencing in 2009 and is supportive of the need to phase out wasteful packaging. The Victorian trial shows that almost 80 per cent of customers switched from plastic bags to reusable bags. The recent SA trial, conducted by the federal member for Makin, revealed that 88 per cent of almost 2,000 customers surveyed said that it was important for the environment to remove plastic bags. A recent Messenger survey showed that 51 per cent of respondents do not use plastic bags. These results all indicate that the overwhelming majority of the community is looking to eliminate the use of plastic bags, and we should respect those views.

A question was asked by the Hon. Rob Lucas about whether larger barrier bags could be manufactured without handles and whether they would be included in the ban. I am advised that they would not and would still be excluded. However, I remind members that barrier bags are generally much thinner. It is unlikely that they will be able to hold many contents and it will be incredibly inconvenient to be using more of those in lieu of the single-use plastic bag when they do not have handles, are thinner and are unlikely to be able to carry many heavy contents.

The other aspect is that it has not been evidenced to the best of my knowledge in any other country that suddenly where there has been a ban on plastic bags people have supplemented that with the use of barrier bags. That does not appear to be the evidence. With those words, I thank all members for their contributions and look forward to the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Mr Chairman, I seek your advice, and perhaps that of the minister. I have quite a number of questions that relate to clauses 3 and 4 and some general questions. I am happy to ask them all upfront to give the government an opportunity to obtain those replies.

The CHAIRMAN: That is fine.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: In relation to the footprint of the various types of bags, in my second reading contribution I referred to a report by Nolan-ITU, which lists single HDPE; 50 per cent recycled HDPE; boutique LDPE; Coles calico (I am not sure why it is listed as Coles calico, as a number of organisations provide calico bags); woven HDPE swag bag; PP fibre (which is known as the green bag); Kraft paper-Coles handled; solid PP smart box; reusable LDPE; biodegradable-starch-based; and biodegradable-PE with prodegradant additives (which I assume is what has been incorrectly termed the bio bag, which breaks down into smaller pieces of plastic).

Does Zero Waste have any information about the footprint of the various carriers that one might use to take one's products away from the retail store? Many years ago, cardboard cartons (which seem to have disappeared—it might be a space issue) used to be quite readily available and were often used as an alternative. That is a question about the footprint: whether Zero Waste has any information about that, and if it will make that available.

My second question relates to pre-packaging. As a prelude to the question, I would assume that many more products will be pre-packaged—for instance, rather than having loose items, they will be bundled together for the convenience of shoppers. I would like to know whether the government has any information on that.

I would also like to know whether the government has considered the issue of recycling plastic bags. There are various supermarkets (my local Coles, for instance) where consumers can put the plastic bags back and they will be recycled, either as plastic bags or as other content. Has the government considered that and, if so, why has it rejected it?

My next question relates to standards for 'biodegradable' (this relates to clause 3). There is a definition there of 'biodegradable bag', which refers to standards, and there is a further definition that refers to 'relevant standards' as meaning AS 4736/2006. Will the standard be issued by regulation or will the Australian standards be used as the standard for that? With respect to the standard that is defined in this bill (which will, presumably, become an act of parliament), will that need to be amended by legislation if it does not continue to be the standard into the future?

What alternatives will the government provide to the blue bags which are usually supplied at the checkout and which people use for meat? They are not barrier bags. One of the issues that has been a bone of contention for retailers is how to redesign their checkouts. I note that this version of the bill provides in clause 4(3) a definition of alternative shopping bags. Is that designed to address that issue and, indeed, why has the government felt the need to include that? Has it considered other alternatives, such as paper bags, and why have they not been included? Also, would the government include the old cardboard cartons as an alternative, which I think is a commendable environmentally friendly form of reusing a resource that would otherwise also go into landfill? In relation to clause4(3)(c), what is envisaged by the wording 'is of a kind brought within the ambit of this definition by the regulations'?

In relation to clause 5, why does the government feel the need to have a penalty for retailers for various offences? Is there some evidence that if this clause is not included retailers will somehow not do the right thing by the community?

Going back to the issue of clause 4 and the alternatives, has the government received some consensus from retailers about what the alternative checkout design will be?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that the evidence shows quite clearly that reusable bags have a much lower environmental impact than all single-use bags. If you use a green bag for a year, less than a quarter of the energy would be needed than to make the HDPE bags that would be used within that time. I have life cycle tables that outline the energy impacts and water impacts. I am happy to read those out, but I am sure the honourable member has access to those. It is a Sustainability Victoria document headed Comparison of Existing Life Cycle Analysis of Shopping Bag Alternatives, dated April 2007.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Could the honourable member repeat the request on pre-packaging?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Has Zero Waste SA any information as a result of consultations or from projections as to whether pre-packaging content will increase, and, once the changes come in, whether there will be substitution in order for people to take account of the fact that they are not able to use those prescribed plastic bags?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: We do not know ahead of time what the full impact might be on pre-packaging. However, we can say that there is a national packaging covenant which many retailers have signed. The covenant is about a commitment to reduce packaging. We have also committed to a review at the end of two years to look at the impact of the ban on a whole range of different practices.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The third question was in relation to recycled plastic bags. I referred to my local supermarket—Coles—which takes back plastic bags and, I assume, recycles them into bags or other products. Has the government considered this and rejected it—and why—as part of its suite of ways in which to deal with this problem?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Obviously, this is a strategy to encourage people to switch to reusable bags. The reusable plastic bags themselves are often recyclable, so you get double your money, environmentally. There is evidence to suggest that very few people use the recycling facilities for single-use plastic bags.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Another question relates, essentially, to clause 3, and the standards for biodegradable bags. There is a definition of 'biodegradable bag' and there is a reference to a relevant standard. The question was whether the standards for biodegradable bags—which, I think is the same as compostable bags—will be by regulation or using the Australian standard. If it is the standard referred to in that particular clause, is it something that may change in the future and, therefore, will need legislation to amend?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Yes; in terms of your first question, biodegradable bags are compostable and, yes, we will be using the Australian standard. We will be relying on the two-year review clause. We did that in response to retailers who actually wanted us to look at whether that standard would still be applicable in two years. The standard can be amended by regulation—so that can be done fairly easily, and we note that work is being done in other jurisdictions on standards that are being developed and, obviously, we will take those into consideration as we look at these matters in the future.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I have another question relating to the offences for retailers who do not provide plastic shopping bags. What is the rationale for that; does the government have some suspicions or some basis for believing that retailers may, indeed, not do the right thing, or misrepresent a plastic bag, which is to be banned by this bill, as something else?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The offences have been included in this bill. There are two offences—one for retailers and one for suppliers—and they complement each other. The offence relating to retailers is about encouraging retailers to be really diligent about the bags that they order from suppliers, to ensure that they do meet the standards and are of the right quality, and the offence relating to suppliers is to ensure that the retailer is, in fact, protected from the inadvertent supply of plastic bags that might not be of the right standard.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: That answer has, in fact, piqued my interest. One of the things that I think was said during the second reading debate is that people will use substitute bags. For instance, some people like to use plastic bags, which would ordinarily be banned, as a bin liner—and I assume that Glad is already ramping up some sort of design process. If someone goes to a shelf in a supermarket to specifically purchase bags that are on a roll, would that type of bag be banned under this legislation? I am not sure whether I am making myself very clear here. You cannot get a bag at the checkout, but you can instead purchase this type of plastic bag by going to the relevant aisle and getting it from the shelf.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The member is suggesting that people could substitute the bag at the checkout point by purchasing a bin liner or another type of bag that has not been banned. There are a couple of issues around that. First, that has not eventuated in other countries where bans have been put in place. So, people have not tended to use those other sorts of bags as a substitute.

Obviously, the bin liners, nappy bags and doggy poo bags etc. are not included in the ban. Also, those bags are generally fairly thin and flimsy, and they do not have handles and are very inconvenient for shoppers to use. So, we have not found that that has been the practice in other countries. We have also found that the compostable bags, which would appear to be commonly replacing the single-use plastic bag at the checkout, make very good bin liners. So, again, it is a win-win.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: One of the other issues that has been raised in this is the occupational, health and safety issue, and I think it is one of the major reasons the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employee's Union has been opposed to banning the plastic bag for some time. Over the years since we have had plastic bags as a product, a particular design for the checkout has emerged.

I would be interested to know whether subclause (3) has been inserted to accommodate the new design of checkouts in that it anticipates that the alternatives will include a biodegradable bag, or what we know as the green bag. One of the other alternatives that has been referred to is paper bags, and I have also referred to the old cardboard carton. Does the government envisage that it will be either biodegradable bags or green bags that will be in predominant use at the checkout? Has the government considered paper bags or cartons, or is it trying to narrow the definition deliberately to funnel retailers towards designing their checkouts to accommodate those two specific types?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: A number of issues have been raised in the honourable member's questions. In relation to the design of the checkouts, it is really at the discretion of retailers to design their checkouts to suit their needs. There are many different types of bags around at the moment. As we have seen, the marketplace has been stimulated to consider further alternatives for bags. So, everyone is very busy looking at, exploring and researching different bag designs, etc. I think that is a good thing. However, what it means is that, at the moment, the marketplace is in a state of rapid change and movement. No doubt that will settle down and supermarkets will end up deciding what design is best for them and their workers and they will then implement it and change the design of their checkouts to fit. That is really a matter for retailers.

We need to be careful about the level of prescription. There are competition issues—ACCC issues—so we would not want to be too prescriptive in terms of affecting competition. In terms of occupational health and safety, clearly, we are committed to the paper (done with the SDA) which identified a number of really important issues. We have said that we encourage retailers to ensure that they incorporate policies and practices that complement occupational health and safety legislation in relation to the weight of bags, and also hygiene. The retailer has the right to reject any bag that it thinks is unhygienic, unhealthy, not safe or too heavy. That is something we encourage retailers to do. The review period will help us identify how well we have been able to do that. In terms of paper bags and cardboard, they are not included in the ban and are, therefore, outside the scope of the legislation.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (2 to 9) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for State/Local Government Relations, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Government Enterprises, Minister Assisting the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Energy) (13:02): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The council divided on the third reading:

AYES (11)
Bressington, A. Brokenshire, R.L. Finnigan, B.V.
Gago, G.E. (teller) Gazzola, J.M. Holloway, P.
Hood, D.G.E. Hunter, I.K. Kanck, S.M.
Parnell, M. Zollo, C.
NOES (7)
Dawkins, J.S.L. Lawson, R.D. Lensink, J.M.A. (teller)
Lucas, R.I. Ridgway, D.W. Schaefer, C.V.
Stephens, T.J.
PAIRS (2)
Wortley, R.P. Wade, S.G.

Bill thus read a third time and passed.


[Sitting suspended from 13:08 to 14:17]


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