Fashion Revolution Week: Amaru Ley on buying second hand, the rise of Depop and the power of the consumer
Posted on
Revolution is a collective act, and when it comes to creating a fashion industry that actually prioritises ethical, sustainable, and intentional choices, everyone has a part to play.
Taking place from Wednesday 22 until Tuesday 28 April, Fashion Revolution Week is calling for people to ‘reclaim the collective’, standing united to challenge how fashion is made and consumed.
The hope? To create both a better fashion industry and to create a path for future generations to follow.
In the lead-up to Fashion Revolution Week, we sat down with three Canberra creatives working in the slow fashion space to talk about its importance and how conscious fashion is a collective mission.
Here, we speak with Garmes Managing Director Amaru Ley. Co-founding the vintage clothing empire (which was previously known as Canberra Garms) in 2025 with four friends, Amaru lives and breathes slow fashion well beyond the store’s opening hours.
As he prepares to open a second Garmes in Melbourne, Amaru takes a step back to look at the industry that changed his life.
What is ‘slow fashion’ to you?
To me, slow fashion means purchasing clothes with the intention that they remain usable for as long as possible, essentially keeping as many garments out of landfill as you can.
When you buy second-hand, you also reduce the demand for new clothing production in the first place. It’s a double-pronged fork: buy stuff that lasts so it doesn’t end up as waste, and by doing so you’re simultaneously lowering the need for new items to be manufactured. Less waste, less production. It’s a win-win.
How can people make more mindful, lasting choices when shopping?
Start by looking at the quality of what you’re actually purchasing. Fabric composition and construction are a good starting point for gauging whether something will last. Or purchase second-hand entirely.
If you buy something that already exists, you’re not using up any new materials. Arguably, most second-hand purchases are sustainable for this very reason.
Is “sustainable fashion” becoming a marketing buzzword? How do you cut through the greenwashing?
The way I cut through it is pretty simple: look at what a brand actually does, not what they say.
If a company has to tell you how sustainable they are through a massive ad campaign, that’s usually your first red flag. With Garmes, we don’t even really use the word “sustainable” that much, because the model speaks for itself.
We’re selling clothes that already exist, there are no new resources going into production, and there are no new garments hitting landfill. That’s about as low impact as fashion gets. We’re not planting a tree every time you buy a t-shirt; we’re just keeping good clothes in circulation, particularly through our in-store buy-and-sell service, Cash for Garmes.
What would the fashion industry need to change to make ethical consumption the norm?
A lot of that responsibility falls on large corporations to make better, more conscious decisions in their production and supply chains, and stronger regulations would go a long way toward enforcing that. But I actually think the real power lies with the consumer.
The more people start purchasing genuinely sustainable products – whether that’s high-quality items they’ll keep for years or second-hand pieces – the less demand there is for fast fashion, and production follows demand. So yes, it falls on corporations and regulators, but as a consumer, you can have a huge impact with the choices you make every day.
Has the boom in second-hand fashion changed the quality or price of what’s available? Are thrift stores becoming less accessible?
The decline in quality at traditional thrift stores has a lot to do with the quality of what’s being donated. More fast fashion being consumed means more fast fashion being donated. It’s a loop.
As for price, higher demand for second-hand items has caused prices to inflate across the board. Traditional donation-based thrift stores are capitalising on that demand and raising their prices to match curated vintage stores, which, in contrast, need a margin to operate.
I think the tension people feel is that stores like Vinnies or the Salvos are not-for-profits that receive their stock for free, so increasing prices can feel like they’re no longer serving their direct community and are instead chasing profit. Their counterargument is that record profits allow them to do more for their charitable causes more money goes further toward their services.
Whether they should be prioritising cheap, accessible clothing or generating revenue for broader programs is genuinely up for debate. But on the accessibility question specifically, I’d push back a little.
There is a huge global excess of clothing, and someone in need of a cheap jumper can still get a cheap jumper. What’s become harder is finding trendy or desirable pieces at thrift store prices, but at that point, we’re talking about wanting fashionable items for cheap, not a lack of access to clothing. It’s a want versus a need.
Do you think the popularity of apps like Depop and Vinted is helping or just shifting the overconsumption problem online?
Both, honestly – and I say that as someone who built a business on Depop. The good part is real; these platforms have made second-hand normal for an entire generation. They’ve built the infrastructure and the culture for second-hand to scale, and that’s a net positive. But they’re tools, not solutions.
The value isn’t in the app; it’s in the intention behind how you use it. If you’re cycling through huge volumes of clothing, you’re still contributing to textile waste, just on a delayed timeline. So yes, overconsumption is still present on these platforms, but the environmental implications are significantly lower than the same habit with new clothes.
Is buying second-hand genuinely better for the planet, or can it still feed an overconsumption habit?
It is genuinely far better for the planet. On a purely environmental level, buying ten second-hand shirts is better than buying ten new ones, as there’s no new production and no new materials consumed. That’s just true. Can it still feed an overconsumption habit? Absolutely, and it does for some people.
But the environmental impact of that overconsumption is dramatically lower than if those same habits were being fed by fast fashion. It’s not a perfect solution, but it’s a significantly better one.
To find out more about Fashion Revolution Week and how to get involved, visit fashionrevolution.org or follow @fashionrevolutionaustralia
