Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 11 Hansard (9 December) . . Page.. 3322 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

The Bill takes a fairly broad definition of plastic shopping bags and includes the potential for the Minister to declare other types of bags or boxes to be covered by this Act. We are not expecting this to occur very often, but we thought it would be more comprehensive to include this feature in the Bill just in case it is needed in the future, rather than having to resort to further amendments to the Bill. I should also note that bags that are used for prepacking of products before sale are not covered by this Bill, as the cost of packaging a product is already incorporated in its unit cost.

The criticism has already been raised against our Bill that while it might be good in theory it is too heavy-handed for the small impact it is likely to have. I reject this argument. It is not such a hard thing for a retailer to charge for a plastic bag, just like they charge for any other product in their shop. I also think it will have an impact on people's attitudes towards plastic bags. The price of bags could be anything from a couple of cents to 10c, depending on the quality of the bag, and I am sure that people will start to think twice about whether they really need to take a bag once they realise that they have to pay directly for it. For better or worse, the hip-pocket nerve can be very sensitive for many people.

If this Bill is regarded as heavy-handed, then what would be an effective, viable approach that will reduce the use of plastic bags? The Government has admitted in various forums that plastic bags are an environmental problem and that it supports the objective of reducing plastic bag consumption, but it has said that it would prefer a voluntary approach of just encouraging people to use reusable bags when they shop. But what the Government has missed is that there is no financial incentive for people to do so. They have to go to the trouble of buying string or calico bags and then they have no opportunity to recoup the money by refusing the cost of plastic bags when they shop. I therefore doubt whether the Government's voluntary approach will really have much effect. It certainly has not so far.

It has also been claimed that we do not have to do anything because the supermarket chains are starting to set up their own recycling schemes. This is fine, but that is not getting to the base of the problem. The highest priority in the waste management hierarchy is to reduce waste; then reuse; and then recycle. Charging for plastic bags encourages people not to take them in the first place. In addition, bags made from recycled plastic, although environmentally better than virgin plastic, still come at a price, which customers should be made aware of.

In conclusion, this Bill provides an effective and simple way of encouraging people to reduce plastic bag consumption by applying the user-pays principle in a very practical and transparent manner. The Bill imposes only minor costs on retailers and allows customers to save money by refusing to take the bags offered by the retailers. I commend the Bill to the Assembly.

Debate (on motion by Ms Carnell) adjourned.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .