Page 5804 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 7 December 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
It is not just coastal towns that need to worry about the damage that plastic causes to oceans. Plastic travels a long way along the land also, blown by the wind or carried along rivers, streams and sewerage systems.
We need to find alternatives to our unsustainable use of plastic and protect our natural resources and ecosystems. This bill is not, as Mr Seselja said, a bill about money. It is a bill around changing behaviour. I would be very pleased if no-one was ever fined under this bill. The aim is not to fine people; the aim is to change behaviour, to break old lifestyle habits.
Many other countries and cities around the world have already paved the way by introducing bans or levies on plastic bags. They have proved that it is simple and easy to do it and that you can still have a well-functioning and convenient shopping system—and one that is better for the environment. The list includes South Australia; the Northern Territory; Tasmania, which has just passed legislation around a ban; France; Italy; Belgium; Israel; Ireland; Canada; San Francisco; Oakland; California; China; western India; various parts of the UK; Botswana; South Africa; Kenya; Tanzania; Taiwan; Singapore; and Bangladesh. This is in addition to a considerable number of European countries that have restricted plastic bag use for the last 20 years.
I would also recommend that those people unsure about the reason for this bill should look at an excellent documentary called Addicted to plastic, made by a filmmaker who has travelled to all parts of the world and documented the impacts caused by our voracious use of plastic.
I would like to make some more comments about the Liberal Party’s position on this bill. I would like to start off by quoting from the election policy of the Tasmanian Liberals, which is called “A plastic shopping bag free Tasmania”. It says that the Tasmanian Liberals will “make Tasmania free of non-biodegradable plastic shopping bags within two years”. In the section entitled “Why this policy is needed”, it lists a raft of environmental reasons why Tasmania should go plastic shopping bag free. It then says:
… over … one year, an average household can save 6 kilograms of greenhouse gas emissions, over 190 megajoules of energy (enough to power a television for six months) and 7 litres of water simply by replacing single use plastic shopping bags with reusable bags that are readily available from supermarkets. If every household in Tasmania could make the change we could all make a positive difference.
It says:
We can all make a difference to improve the environment and this is one practical and effective way to do so.
This is not just an issue of perceptions. It is an issue of changing our behaviour—changing our throwaway behaviour. Yes, we agree with Mr Seselja that the throwaway nature of single-use plastic bags is one of the issues. This is one of the reasons why we are supporting this ban.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video