Page 3928 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 15 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
However, as is often the case, these kinds of scare campaigns take a narrow perspective. Madam Speaker, the problem here is that the so-called harmful effects promoted by the green movement have now reached the consciousness of some of the consumers and, politics being what it is, they have responded to the will of those people. So, it is the end of the story for organochlorines.
However, Madam Speaker, is it the end of the story? There has been some suggestion that heptachlor was banned in the USA, but that is not the case. In fact, the experience in the use of the organophosphate chlorpyrifos was that the need for retreatments actually rose and the health risk also increased. Heptachlor was reintroduced as the only effective treatment. At a meeting of the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Council in Darwin the week before last it was decided not to take any definitive action on organochlorine pesticides for termite treatment. It was also concluded that a lot of caution was needed on this matter.
This is an interesting point which the Minister has not addressed in his statement - the social reasons. The Minister did not address the matter of the human consequence of the effect of termite infestation - for instance, loss or damage to property. It is a fact that termite infestation is more prevalent in Darwin than in Canberra. However, the point remains that, if organochlorines are banned and people lose their homes because of termite infestation, we have a major social problem and a potential huge compensation claim.
The problem, Madam Speaker, is that alternatives are not as effective as organochlorines. One of the alternatives, chlorpyrifos, an organophosphate, is nowhere near as effective as the organochlorines and it would require retreatment every three years. That is not to speak of the cost. The health authorities would also regard organophosphates as presenting a more serious threat to health than organochlorines. The other suggested alternatives in the policy paper are the use of physical barriers such as termimesh and granitgard, but these are not proven.
I refer the Minister to page 10 of his policy paper where, under the heading "Conclusions", he says, "The only positive effective alternative to the use of organochlorines at this stage appears to be termimesh products". Only the week before last I was listening to a local radio program in which there was a talkback and that question was asked of a building adviser. He pointed out that, whilst this termimesh may be effective under a slab or under footings, the minute you reach the outside of your building and it comes in contact with leaves or roots it is an ideal way for the termites to climb up and it is no longer effective. It is also very expensive.
Madam Speaker, I must reiterate that, even though the organochlorine pesticides chlordane and heptachlor have not been proven to be harmful, we have to contend with the recommendation that states:
Chlordane and heptachlor are allowed to be used for termite treatment in the construction of buildings but not for the treatment of infestations in existing buildings.
Madam Speaker, this is a ludicrous situation. I understand, however, that in serious cases people can apply to the Department of Health to use the organochlorines chlordane and heptachlor. So, why the problem in the first case?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .