The document, NSW Plastics: The Way Forward, covers the strategies of reduce, reuse and recycle towards the goal of improved plastics management. In this submission we will apply a litter reduction lens to our responses to the proposals.
We know from the Key Litter Item study data (DCCEEW) that litter reductions in urban estuaries since 2018 correlated with:
- Introduction of bans on plastic items that were used when on the go
- Financial incentive to collect items used on the go (i.e. Return and Earn)
- Successful anti-littering campaigns
- Pandemic lockdowns
While ongoing anti-littering campaigns will be needed for incremental improvements in public education about littering, the highest positive impact of future actions will most likely be gained from broader plastic items bans and broader financial incentives applied to items used on the go and other unnecessary single-use plastic items.
The proposed actions in the paper (NSW Plastics: The Way Forward) represent an improvement compared to current practice. The actions also diverge from those proposed in other states. Specifically, the NSW proposals would prepare NSW for long term plastics use given that the proposals include having less toxic and more recyclable plastics, with clear directions for recycling. However, to reduce litter, we also need to continue to change human behaviour. Return and Earn has been very successful at this by providing a financial incentive to reduce littering. Less litter is an important part of whole story. If the state decides to retain plastic single use take away items, that are common littered items, then the proposals must go hand-in-hand with a firm plan to reduce littering.
We put forward that either a physical change to plastic items and/or a financial incentive are required to reduce littering in our response below. When considering ‘who should pay’ for our recommendations, we have adopted NSW Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal’s (IPART’s) cost allocation hierarchy as illustrated by Figure 1. NSW IPART use this hierarchy to ensure costs are borne equitably by minimising the practice of ‘socialising costs’. At the top of this hierarchy is the identification of the party(s) that are responsible for creating the risk. If this party can be readily identified, then it is this party(s) that should bear the cost. When applying this hierarchy to commonly littered items, manufacturers and suppliers are readily identifiable and, therefore, should pay for the full disposal of the items, including collection and disposal of items that are littered.
Figure 1: Cost allocation hierarchy (Mamre Road Stormwater Scheme, Draft Report, September 2024, Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) NSW)
Read the full submission HERE.
