Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 08 Hansard (Tuesday, 3 August 2004) . . Page.. 3371 ..

from the Friends of Durras, a coastal environmental group, who are concerned that balloons released in the ACT will eventually reach the coast and litter the coastline. The letter states:

Members of our organisation walk our beaches regularly picking up rubbish. Balloon ends, that is the string and the very end of the balloon, are a regular part of the beach debris….

Considering that our members pick up what constitutes perhaps only 10% of a balloon (and probably a very small percentage of the balloons released) a lot of latex ends up in the sea unaccounted for.

This amendment recognises that people should take responsibility for objects that they release into the atmosphere. Balloons can travel and land kilometres from the release site. There are major concerns that balloons often end up in rivers and oceans and that they can be ingested by animals that mistake them for food. The ingestion of balloons can choke or entangle animals or cause them to strangle to death.

The definition of mass release mirrors the New South Wales legislation; that is, mass release is defined as 20 balloons. This is for the sake of ease and consistency across the border. The definition makes it clear that for celebratory events it is not okay to release a large number of balloons. I recognise that the balloon industry does have some arguments that latex balloons break down a lot easier than is commonly believed. The Greens still believe that it is not responsible to release items that will become litter and that could cause a danger to animals. I would like to make it clear that this amendment is not banning balloons, just encouraging the responsible use of them.

Both of these amendments deal with the causal end of the litter equation. The Greens believe working to prevent litter is more effective than trying to manage it when it becomes a problem.

MS DUNDAS (5.27): The Democrats have no problem in supporting the Greens’ amendment to prohibit the mass release of balloons. Most balloons are made of non-biodegradable material, releasing damaging chemicals into our soil base, and can be easily mistaken by some animals as a food source, often leading to fatal choking. So any action we can take to limit the number of balloons entering our ecosystem needs to be supported. There are, I note in the proposal put forward by Ms Tucker, provisions to allow people still to enjoy balloons but to ensure that they are kept out of the ecosystem, which I think is a goal worth supporting.

In relation to unsolicited advertising material and advertising material going into letterboxes that have a “No junk mail” sticker on them: I thank Ms Tucker for taking out the word “incorporated” because most Neighbourhood Watch associations are not incorporated. There could have been an issue there that non-profit groups such as Neighbourhood Watch could have ended up with massive fines under this proposal.

But I still have concerns in relation to this proposal. The example is a child who loses a puppy, prints up some notices and puts them in letterboxes. Under this law that child and their parents who helped them produce that flier are actually liable. That is, I guess, an unanswered question about the impact of the proposal put forward. As it is a strict liability offence, there is not actually room for much defence because of course there was

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .