Page 647 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 30 March 2021
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
improve the circular economy, to introduce organic waste recycling and to become one of the Australian leaders in the reduction of single-use plastics.
I would like to speak to an issue that Ms Clay touched on briefly. In the Australian Capital Territory we pride ourselves on being leaders in human rights. With this expectation comes the responsibility to follow through in meaningful and tangible ways. Community engagement is a useful process and recognises that every decision we make in government will affect some people in our community more than others. Where possible, changes to legislation and policy need to lean towards co-design. Retrofitting any process, product or legislation is time consuming and results in worse outcomes. A more inclusive process of co-design means extending our consultation processes and accepting that the outcomes of engagement may not result in the changes that we, the government, would expect or intend. This is true democracy.
Earlier this year I hosted several roundtable discussions with peak groups in the ACT disability community about the future reduction in the availability of single-use plastics. The outcome of these round tables was an overwhelming sense of concern that this legislation, while overall a positive move for the territory, would unfairly burden people with disabilities and medical conditions and those who use certain products for therapeutic purposes. These issues are real, and these issues already exist in a transition vacuum, where the supply of some single-use plastics is hard to find. Indeed, I have found myself unable to source plastic straws for drinks supplied during those meetings and round tables. Accessibility is an issue which exists beyond building standards.
For this reason, the legislative changes to single-use plastics will be implemented progressively over time, while government continues to work on ways of supporting ongoing access to single-use plastics that are needed for therapeutic purposes or as accessibility tools. This work on accessibility is necessary, even without this legislative change, as some products become harder to find due to being replaced by re-usable products that are not functional as accessibility tools.
This highlights the importance of meaningful community engagement. I heard repeatedly that people with disabilities support measures for sustainability and environmental protection. But this intersection is not always easy and it is one that we, as a government, must be careful that we address. People with disabilities cannot be further disempowered by having to positively identify themselves and their needs to complete strangers, by paying for a product which has previously been freely available, or by being subject to discrimination based on the use of products for which there is a general disdain in the community.
We must always be thinking of the social model of disability—that people are disabled by the barriers in society, including infrastructure and people’s attitudes—and consider the impacts of policy and legislative changes on people with accessibility needs. These are difficult issues that we must all face, and where the answers might not be straightforward. It is incumbent on all of us to do the best we can for our community.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video