Please note: This is an extract from Hansard only. Hansard extracts are reproduced with permission from the Parliament of Tasmania.

ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION (RELEASE OF BALLOONS) BILL 2001 (No. 126)

Second Reading

Ms PUTT (Denison - 2R) - Mr Speaker, I am pleased to be bringing forward today this bill which provides for a ban on the release of lighter-than-air balloons when that comprises a mass release of such balloons. I would like to note the presence in the Speaker's Reserve today of the Planet Protectors from Sorell school whose initiative this legislation is. In July of last year I received a letter from these students and I will read the letter into Hansard , Mr Speaker. It says:

'Dear Mrs Putt,

We are pupils at Sorell School who belong to a group called the Planet Protectors. We are writing to ask you for help about the banning of balloon releases in Tasmania. Six of our students went to an environment conference in Adelaide last year and at the conference they met Bethany Henderson who campaigned against balloon releases in New South Wales. That Government has now passed legislation to stop these releases. We are writing to you and other politicians to ask them to help us to make it law in Tasmania. We are concerned that with our bicentenary coming up in 2004 balloon releases may be part of the celebrations.

When balloons are released into the air they have to come down somewhere and when they do birds and animals eat them and they block up their stomachs or intestines and they starve to death slowly. Balloons are supposed to be fun not a danger to our wildlife. We know these balloon releases don't happen very often in our state the last time was for the Reconciliation Walk across the bridge. We think they should not happen at all. We look forward to hearing from you and hope you will support us.'

Mr Speaker, my understanding is that other members of parliament received similar correspondence.

As a result of that approach from the Planet Protectors, I obtained for myself a copy of the bill which was enacted in New South Wales by the Carr Government. I was going to say it may have been introduced by the Premier himself but I see here it is a parliamentary secretary who was reading on behalf of Mr Debus on the bill. As was canvassed in that letter I have just read out, the initiative for this originally came from a young school girl who became concerned about the impact in the marine environment of these lighter-than-air balloon releases. When she was fobbed off when she made approaches about trying to stop mass balloon releases during the upcoming Sydney Olympics at that time and was told that the balloons biodegraded and there was no need for concern, she actually went ahead and did her own experiments in the backyard with balloons to see how long it did in fact take for them to break down and to biodegrade. She discovered that they were very persistent and that there was indeed still a need to undertake this course of action.

Mr Speaker, what I did, having got hold of the legislation, was I went and met with the Planet Protectors out at Sorell school and then organised, as members may recall, an occasion in the reception room downstairs where the students brought along a video and showed that film from A Current Affair show which went through the course of action that Bethany Henderson had taken to get the legislation prepared and enacted, her lobbying campaign, her experiments, and all the rest of it, and indeed showed her sitting in Parliament House in New South Wales at the time that the legislation was approved. She was a very proud of her achievement and, I have to say, a very persistent lobbyist and an impressive lobbyist for that cause.

I introduced legislation to the Parliament which I am now bringing on for its second reading debate today at the time when the Planet Protectors last came to the Parliament and that was on 22 November last year. That is five months ago now and I did delay bringing on this legislation which I was originally going to debate towards the end of the last year in order that the Government might have time to have a look at it and to consider their response. I think there has been plenty of time by now.

I want to go on to some of the matters that were previously canvassed in New South Wales which also apply here. As I have said, the driving force behind the proposal is to protect marine animals that may swallow balloons that are blown or washed out to sea. There is also an additional problem that latex balloons may freeze and shatter in the atmosphere and cause widespread littering and of course it is impossible to trace, once the balloons are up and gone, where they have originally come from.

Around the world environmental concerns have been expressed in respect of this issue. Some American states have already legislated for bans on balloon releases and the United Nations established its global program for protection of the marine environment from land-based activities. That program aims to prevent degradation of marine environments from land-based activities. Australia became a signatory in 1995 and approving this bill would be a step for Tasmania towards meeting those commitments.

I should outline some matters to do with the content of the bill. As I said, the aim is to prevent the mass release of lighter-than-air balloons. It will make it an offence to release or to cause or to permit the release of 20 or more lighter-than-air balloons at or about the same time. The maximum penalty will be greater if more than a hundred balloons are released and that is directly modelled on the New South Wales legislation. Of course there are exceptions. These are where balloons are released unintentionally and without negligence or balloons are released and contained indoors, or balloons are hot-air balloons that are recovered after landing or balloons are released for scientific including meteorological purposes. There is no intent obviously to interfere with that very worthwhile scientific activity.

I want to also talk about the responsible use of balloons because clearly balloons are associated with successful mass events and are an indicator usually of having a good time. They can be used responsibly and I think the best example I have come across is at the Paralympics closing ceremony. Props for the opening and closing ceremonies were large balloons containing smaller balloons all of which were held in a contained environment. When those balloons were no longer needed of course they would have been disposed of correctly. Thousands of people who came to the stadium were each given a white balloon and instructed at a particular time to blow up the balloon and push it down into the stadium to create the effect of a cascade of balloons. Of course all of those balloons were in a controlled environment, as I have said, and all ended up on the floor of the stadium to be collected at the appropriate time and disposed of properly. These sorts of mass events which were greatly enjoyed by everybody who attended are certainly not intended to be banned in any way under this legislation.

I also had some information here, if I can just find it, about the numbers of balloons which have been released at various events, and this is where you begin to get an appreciation of the size of the environmental problem that can flow from the mass release of helium balloons.

The Balloon Artists Suppliers Association advised in information that was brought forward in the New South Wales second reading debate that mass releases of helium balloons were a source of concern to many people and although they do not happen terribly often, of course they are on a large scale.

At the 1998 Rugby League Grand Final, 100 000 balloons were released; 72 000 were released at the 1997 Winfield Cup - and I suspect we have changed potentially the tobacco sponsorship there but not the balloons aspect at this point. Perhaps the new member even witnessed that release of balloons. I understand that roughly 30 000 balloons are released at a time at the AFL Grand Final. They are mass releases that we could better do without.

I will not hold up the House with too much other lengthy presentation of information about this except to assure you that there is a deal of scientific evidence that strengthens the argument from conservationists and wildlife experts that it is time to take a stand and to make some changes.

There has been a 1990 study, particularly into the effect of latex and other marine debris, and it found that turtles, dolphins, whales and seabirds become victims through the ingestion of latex and other debris which of course blocks up their guts making them unable to eat other food. Consequently they die of malnutrition or other related causes, including gangrene.

The results of the controlled experiment of the breakdown time of balloons state that balloons that are submerged in salt water have been found to remain intact for periods of at least one year and the experiment also pointed to the fact that as many as 6.3 per cent of turtles may die with balloon debris in their gastrointestinal tracts. One of the things about the release of balloons of course is that where you release them is not where they end up doing the damage. They can be carried very far into quite different ecosystems where they can have this adverse impact.

Mr Speaker, I do not think I need to say more. Of course there is a range of other pollutants in our environment that can have effects on seabirds or marine life. There is a range of other littering issues. However that is not an argument against taking action here today on the mass release of lighter-than-air balloons. New South Wales accepted that it was appropriate to take action and that at a later date it could be incorporated into a review of their Litter Act and I would hope that our Government would take that same approach.

The concern that has been expressed by these students is very real. I commend them for bringing it to our attention. I, myself, had not been aware of the significance of this issue until I received their correspondence and looked into the matter. I am hopeful that we will get legislation passed here today and that whatever else occurs we can ensure that we do not have a mass release of lighter-than-air balloons when it comes to 2004 and the bicentenary celebrations. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr LLEWELLYN (Lyons - Minister for Primary Industries, Water and Environment) - Mr Speaker, I thank the member for her comments and the introduction of this particular bill and I acknowledge the good work of the students from Sorell and teachers who are here today to look at democracy at work, I guess, or the process of the introduction of legislation in this House.

Many of the issues that have been spoken of by the member for Denison, Ms Putt, are certainly issues that are of concern. I am not certain that the science behind some of the issues is exactly as she has said but nevertheless this is an issue within the community that certainly needs to be considered.

Right at the end of the member's speech she mentioned that in New South Wales - obviously this piece of legislation before us today is based very closely on the New South Wales bill - it was the intention that this question could be perhaps incorporated in future in the Litter Act of New South Wales with a review of that act. Since the time when we discussed this matter and I met with everyone downstairs at the invitation of the member, I have sought some advice from the department as to the best way of looking at this matter and considering it and indeed, it may well have spurred on some action with respect to that very point - a review of our Litter Act.

We made an announcement about the fact that there will be a review of the Litter Act and it was intended that we look at this question for implementation within that review of the act. I have to say that I believe that to be the appropriate way to deal with the matter and if there are to be amendments along the lines that the member has presented in this bill they ought to be incorporated in the Litter Act.

One of the things of course that we would normally do as part of that process from a legislative point of view is discuss the issue widely within the Government and that is happening with the review of the act. I am talking however about dealing with a particular issue, and also with all the stakeholders associated with these matters - environmental groups, those people who sell balloons and the like - within the wider community. We have not had a chance obviously to come to some final decision about the matter but that process would happen by way of the review of the act.

Then an amended bill would be presented to Cabinet for approval, or the direction with regard to those amendments presented to Cabinet for approval and if the bill is approved, the Parliamentary Counsel would draft the legislation to incorporate all of the issues associated with a review. It obviously would not only be associated with helium balloons or the release of balloons but all manner of other issues associated with litter and pollution within our environment that perhaps need to be covered and are not at the moment or need to be changed in some way in the existing legislation.

So I just make that point about the way the Government believes we ought to treat this matter and in the process I have tried to outline the way we develop amendments to legislation. I think that is the right course of action and because of that the Government will not be agreeing with the member's bill in the form it is in at the moment but we will try to bring back some decision with regard to this issue and amendments in the future within that review of the Litter Act once it is before the Parliament. I cannot guarantee that that will happen in the budget session of parliament; certainly things are advanced with regard to the review of the Litter Act but it is a matter of priorities so far as legislation is concerned. I know that might be of some disappointment to the students at Sorell, but can I say to them that the issue that you raise is being taken seriously by the Government, and we believe it is appropriate to deal with it in the way that I have just expressed. The Government will be opposing the bill in its present form, but looking at the issue in the way that I have just suggested.

Mr McMANUS (Franklin) - Mr Speaker, there is no doubt that the planet does need people who care for it, and I acknowledge that the planet protectors' mission is a very worthwhile one. When we look at environmental issues, we need to look at what we believe to be a concern, and then we also need to look at trying to determine beyond at least reasonable doubt what the facts are and where we should focus our efforts in dealing with the difficulties.

There are many people who think balloons are made of plastic, and there is no doubt that many plastics create an enormous amount of harm for our environment, but of course balloons themselves are not made of plastic, they are made of latex. Latex is fully biodegradable and will break down at approximately the same rate as a leaf from an oak tree. Latex of course is obtained from a rubber tree without doing any harm to the rubber tree. Those trees themselves remove approximately 400 million kilograms of carbon dioxide or greenhouse gas each year from the earth's atmosphere, which is something that not too many people know, and in fact about 16 million of those trees are used in making balloons. Many of those trees grow in South American rainforests, which of course we want to protect, and also in Malaysia.

Balloons themselves are classified as toys. That is an important point because there has also been some concern expressed about the chemicals used, for instance, in colouring, but the fact of the matter is that the balloons themselves as far as the colouring is concerned present no harmful effect at all.

An important point that was made was the issue about legislation, and what has happened in New South Wales. What was not mentioned was that this was also dealt with in the United States in 1988, and on 20 October 1988 the United States District Court in Seattle, Washington, ruled against the environmentalists' attempt to stop a balloon release because it found that there is no problem caused by balloons harming the environment. That does not necessarily mean that I agree with the release of 20, 30, 80 or 100 000 balloons, but unfortunately the legislation that we are dealing with looks at a number of 20, with the inference that balloons on any kind of scale beyond 20 will create environmental harm. What happens when a balloon is released into the air in virtually 91 per cent of the cases is that after it reaches a high altitude it freezes and shatters. The consequence of that shattering process is indeed that small pieces about the size of a five cent piece are created. But the question has to be asked: where have we found a harmful consequence as a result of that process?

What has been put this afternoon is that there has been evidence that marine life has been harmed as a result of ingesting balloon fragments. The evidence that I have does not support that proposition. In fact it says that the research conducted at the University of Miami found that the passing of latex corresponded with the normal gut-passing time of the animals that it analysed and that there is no documented proof that the death - and in this case I am now just referring to domestic animals - has been attributed to a balloon. Similar studies have also been conducted on marine life because I note that the member for Denison made a reference to the harmful effects on sea animals. It is true that some sea creatures have ingested some balloon fragments but the latex has been found to be non-toxic and it has not been established that it has caused the death or harm of sea creatures. That does not mean to say that we want to be promoting the practice of seeing large numbers of plastics or even latex finding themselves in our marine environment.

To our young planet protectors, I would say to you that one area that is of concern to the Opposition, and I am sure to the Government, is the issue of plastics finding their way in significant quantities into our sea environments. One of the biggest contributing factors to that is what goes down our suburban gutters and our stormwater drains and out into our marine environment. That is an area where we know problems are created. There are other behaviours that we know do contribute in a potentially serious way to pollution of our coastal waterways and estuaries and that should be addressed.

With the best of intentions, I do not believe that it is necessary to go to the step of passing a law which singles out balloons as a major contributor to the harmful effect on the health of ecosystems or marine systems. What I am saying is that if I were to be arguing changes that should be made in terms of the behaviour and the way we use balloons, I would be wanting to let people know that the things they attach to balloons, like strings, like plastics, that may be associated with balloons that are released into the air, those materials themselves can be harmful, there is no doubt about that. They do not have the same properties as latex. In fact those people who sell balloons will tell you that they should be hand-tied and they should not involve the use of other materials and that there are responsible ways of using balloons if they are going to be released into the atmosphere. We should be using legislation when we need to use legislation and this is a question at the end of the day about whether or not we need a law or whether or not what we need to do is provide decent education for the wider community about what should occur and what should not occur when it comes to the use of balloons.

I have to say, as a Liberal, there is one other aspect to this and that is that if you are going to assert that, because a particularly good lobbyist changed a law, that change was based on scientific fact, simply because they were a lobbyist, you should be doing more in terms of scrutiny before you simply follow suit because there are people's livelihoods at stake, there are jobs at stake, there is an industry that has a reputation for providing a product which has not been shown to create an environmental problem in this State and therefore the Opposition will not be supporting it.

The House divided -

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER - As the 'Ayes' have no support, in accordance with standing order 192 I declare the 'Noes' have it.

Second reading so negatived .