Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to speak to these particular amendments because they showcase how important it is, as we legislate around these critical issues, to be engaged with all of the communities in different states that may well be affected by legislation as it passes through this place. The reality is that disabled people are very much environmentalists too. We don't want to have to, in the course of these debates, choose between the mobility aids that we need to live our daily lives and the action to protect our environment that we know is so urgently needed. We don't want to have to put our own care needs above the environment, and we have an effective solution to this that ensures that our voices are part of a process of implementing policies which interact with our care needs. This is a really critical point: to avoid ending up in a situation where you've got yourself a really damaging dichotomy, it is so important to engage with disabled people in these processes. We have done just that.

Senator Whish-Wilson and I worked with the disability community over the process of putting together these amendments and it became very clear that there were a number of issues that needed to be addressed, one of which is the reality that renewable straws are not appropriate or usable by many disabled people; there are various reasons why disabled people require plastic straws and why some do not have the ability to use alternatives such as metal, paper, glass, bamboo or—indeed—silicone straws as has been proposed by some. Often these issues relate to the nature of the person's impairment. Some of the other reasons raised by the community include the fact that these options can potentially harm disabled people, and they include choking hazards and quite serious injuries. Non-plastic straws also create difficulties with being able to appropriately position and use. They can incur a higher cost and many of them are not safe to use with high-temperature liquids.

We can create solutions to the massive environmental challenges that face our society while also being inclusive of disabled people, and I think this is the important point. There is work to be done in the development of renewable straws and reusable straws that do meet these accessibility requirements, and the pressure and the onus to make these developments must lie fairly and squarely with manufacturers. It should not be the responsibility of disabled people to advocate for their right to consume foods and liquids like the rest of the community. Limiting the use of plastic products to the greatest degree possible whilst continuing to allow them to be available as a necessary tool for disabled people to use to eat and drink isn't unreasonable; it is, indeed, very achievable. We have specific sections of the propositions put forward by Senator Whish-Wilson which deal with this.

As I say, we have worked closely with community to develop these solutions, and we would like to acknowledge that banning plastic straws and the conversations that often take place around these topics impact on disabled people. They're often a source of distress because being able to go out in public, to be able to drink in public and socialise and participate in community life, is really important. That is why, into this proposition, we have built in relevant exemptions. One amendment has within its sections exemptions which relate specifically to the need to use plastic straws as a mobility aid.

With the short time I've got left, I will read the relevant section that is proposed by Senator Whish-Wilson:

94M Plastics exempt act

(1) An act in relation to a prohibited plastic is a plastics exempt act if:

(a) the prohibited plastic is a straw; and

(b) the act is to supply the straw to a person, or a class of person, who has a disability (within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992); and

(c) the disability is such that, a failure to supply the straw, would cause inconvenience for, or potential harm to, the person, or class of person, with the disability.

(2) The rules may provide that a specific act in relation to a prohibited plastic is a plastics exempt act (including by providing that an act is a plastics exempt act if specified conditions are met).

(3) Before the Minister makes rules that provide that a specified act in relation to a prohibited plastic is a plastics exempt act, the Minister must be satisfied of one or more of the following in relation to the act:

(a) the act is necessary to satisfy food safety requirements;

(b) the act is necessary to ensure the access needs of one or more specified persons, or classes of person, are being met;

(c) the act relates to medical purposes, therapeutic purposes or other purposes relating to health;

(d) the act relates to providing or ensuring the security or personal safety of one or more specified persons, or classes of person.

So the comprehensive structure that we offer is one which would lay the framework for a flexible structure in which we could deal with what is undoubtedly, undeniably, an environment challenge of significant proportion while also ensuring the retention of the right of disabled people to use the mobility aids that are available to them in a way that enables us to be part of the communities in which we live.

I want to thank Senator Whish-Wilson for his engagement on this issue. It's been a pleasure to work with him on it and to continue to work together as we chart a course in this space that avoids false dichotomies between protecting our precious places and ensuring that the rights of disabled people are upheld.