Page 370 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 19 February 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The commissioner’s preferred recommendation, to introduce minimum pricing for plastic bags, requires detailed consideration. The report suggests charging a levy on plastic bags and using those funds for environmental purposes such as pollution control, research, behavioural change and education initiatives. Alternatively, it suggests that the price of bags could be increased without charging a levy. But this may be putting more money into the pockets of large supermarkets and retailers, which may not be the ideal way to drive change with the community’s support. A price floor is most likely to have the greatest cost-of-living impact on those least able to afford it and with the fewest options available to adapt their behaviour.
The commissioner’s report did not provide any modelling on the price elasticity of plastic bag consumption, so government will need to consider further economic implications of the recommendation, the costs associated with using price as a mechanism to achieve change in consumer behaviour, and equity concerns.
The option of increasing the minimum thickness of the plastic bags also needs to be further considered. Under the current ban, single-use bags were replaced by thicker 15c bags that are still used once by shoppers. Increasing the thickness to between 45 and 55 microns theoretically improves the longevity of these bags, but analysis is required as to whether this affects the behaviour of consumers in reusing plastic bags.
Transitioning to alternative bags made from calico, jute, hemp, paper and other materials may also be part of reducing our reliance on plastic. However, each alternative needs to be carefully considered, as they also have an impact on the environment because of emission and water intensive production processes. For example, according to a Danish study, polypropylene bags, most of the green reusable bags found at supermarkets, should be used 37 times and cotton bags should be used 7,100 times before being discarded. A significant shift in community behaviour towards reuse would be required.
Madam Speaker, the report also made further recommendations regarding a mandatory plastic bag disclosure regime, the governance of plastic bag regulation and the potential of further research into the feasibility of compostable plastic bags. A mandatory disclosure regime does have a potential impact on business. While we would like better information to support future decision-making on single-use plastic bags, many small businesses in the ACT that use plastic bags would be burdened with additional regulations and must be consulted on this matter. Seeking this data only from larger businesses has the potential to dilute the quality of the data. The disclosure on the number of plastic bags per retailer may also be commercially sensitive and these privacy issues need to be further analysed. It is also not guaranteed that the increased disclosure would drive behaviour in such a way that would offset the additional costs of increasing regulation.
Recommendation 3 called on the government to confirm the optimal division of responsibilities for the regulation of plastic bags. In just August 2018, responsibility for plastic bags moved from the Environment, Planning and Sustainable Development Directorate to the Transport Canberra and City Services Directorate. As the Minister for City Services, I am now responsible for litter and waste collection, as well as
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video