Let me be upfront: I am not writing from some pristine, capsule-wardrobe moral high ground. I’ve done the late-night online poke around, added a few things to a cart because they looked good on an Insta stranger, but to have the parcel arrive with five pieces of fast fashion rubbish and – kind of maddeningly – one genuine gem that I still wear.
That’s the trap many of us fall into. It’s not that fast fashion is universally worthless, but the model is built on making us buy 10 things to get the “one thing”. And somehow we’ve all agreed that’s the new wardrobe normal. But you know what? It absolutely isn’t.
France’s parliament has passed a law imposing fees of 25¢ to €6 (41¢-$9.80) per item on ultra-fast-fashion e-tailers like Shein and Temu, climbing to €10 by 2030 – and banning those companies from advertising altogether, including through influencers. That, to me, is a government that’s actually looked at the business model (and the landfill, pollution and environmental issues it creates) and decided to start choking it.
While France’s version isn’t perfect – it conveniently spares European brands like Zara and H&M– at least it’s a fight. What we’ve got here in Australia is a mere suggestion box.
The average Australian buys – get this – around 56 new clothing items a year, and at an average cost of $13 per item, we’ve overtaken the US as the world’s biggest per-capita consumer of clothes, shoes and bags. I find that genuinely embarrassing. We know cheap is addictive, but cheap is also catapulting us into a world surrounded by junk. And we all know what junk does to the body.
Since July 2024, Australia has had Seamless – a “stewardship scheme” under which member brands voluntarily pay 4¢ for every new garment they place on the market. I think it’s well-intentioned but fairly toothless. It’s voluntary, with no plan to pass the levy to shoppers, which sounds virtuous until you realise it means the cost signal will never reach anyone doing any kind of quickie couture overbuying. Even the scheme’s research author has said 4¢ is far too low to change brand behaviour and should be raised to at least 50¢ a garment.
Having spent more than 25 years writing on fashion and its place in pop culture – runways, red carpets, success and exit stories, and the way a hemline or hashtag defines a moment – I believe fashion also needs to be tempered with healthy, altruistic commentary too. And what gets missed every time the fast fashion furore conversation happens is not that people are being reckless or shallow, but more that the reality of cost of living hits home.
I know plenty of people – myself included – who cannot afford to clothe themselves or their kids in beautifully made pieces in gorgeous fabrications. I wish! Sure, the luxury market is wonderful and wishfully real, but it’s not where most live financially. When a top costs $13, the maths does the mathing, especially when wages haven’t kept pace with rent or groceries.
One well-made piece I’ve had for five/10/20 years costs less per wear, causes less landfill and lasts longer than 10 items that cost $13 and pill after two washes. I know that’s a hard sell when consumer culture is built on Insta/TikTok presence and everyone’s hip pocket is under stress, but no 4¢ levy is going to teach anyone that lesson.
With more than 200,000 tonnes of clothing ending up in Australian landfill every year – nearly four Sydney Harbour Bridges’ worth – I used to think reselling on Depop or Vinted or donating were my declutter escape hatches, but not any more. Fast fashion may make up 30 per cent of all charity donations, but 14 per cent of what’s donated ends up in landfill because much of it was never built to survive a second life or to be “re-loved”.
While the whole moral panic about buying cheap clothes has been around for ages, a tiny levy won’t be the total solution. France has shown it is going after the actual model, and maybe Australia could try a little harder.
Melissa Hoyer is a social commentator.
Get a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up for our Opinion newsletter.
