Page 5799 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 7 December 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
In fact, it included a paragraph from the Environment Protection and Heritage Council on how plastic bags can actually assist in reducing a landfill’s potential for adverse environmental impacts. The EPHC said:
… the environmental impact of plastic bags in landfill is likely to be low due to their essentially inert or unreactive nature. It appears that plastic bags may have some landfill management benefits including stabilising qualities, leachate minimisation and minimising greenhouse gas emissions.
Can Mr Corbell explain this one? At the recent annual report hearings, the EPA let the cat out of the bag, I think. When I asked about plastic bag pollution they stated:
I cannot say that it has been one of any great significance, from my officers, in relation to pollution.
So we have got the EPA in the ACT saying, “Well, actually, it’s not really a problem.” I asked them to tell us how big a problem, and the answer from the EPA was, “Well, not very big. Not really a problem at all.” That is when the minister had to step in. We had the Productivity Commission and we had the expert opinion of people working on the ground in the ACT. So why are we considering turning shoppers into criminals, or shop assistants into criminals in this case?
Perhaps the real motivation was revealed in Simon Corbell’s answer. He was very embarrassed by the EPA’s statement. It did not put him in a good light; so he clarified it. He clarified the position of the government. He said:
Just on that point, the government has taken the policy decision it has in relation to plastic bags, based on two factors—
based on two factors, Mr Speaker—
One is obviously perceptions of its problem in terms of contributing to litter, as Mr Walters indicates.
So the first rationale that the government has is not that it is damaging the environment; it is perceptions of the problem. That is how we make policy now. There is a perception of a problem in the community, whether or not it is well founded, and we make policy. That is, apparently, how we make laws. Mr Corbell went on to say:
And the second is the throw-away nature of the product and the fact that many Canberrans perceive it as a very wasteful practice …
The second rationale sounds a little bit like the first:
… the throw-away nature of the product and the fact that many Canberrans perceive it as a very wasteful practice to have once-off-use plastic shopping bags that end up in landfill.
It is “the vibe”, Mr Speaker. That is why we are considering this legislation today.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video