Page 3929 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 15 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Madam Speaker, it would seem eminently sensible to retain the use of chlordane and heptachlor at least until a viable and effective alternative has been developed. There seems to be no reason at all why the Minister wants to hasten the banning of these pesticides by the end of next year. The Minister may wish to ponder on this thought: If, by banning these pesticides, there is a major outbreak of termite infestation in Canberra, will the Government be liable to compensate people for damaged property? It might make the compensation bill on asbestos removal look like peanuts by comparison. I would therefore urge the Government and the Minister to move slowly on this one, which I understand is the case in all the other States.
There are positive steps that can be taken. Firstly, the building code can be amended to require the use of non-timber materials for elements of construction, in particular the footings and flooring, and could require building sites to be cleared of waste timber offcuts. There would be many more ways to minimise the risk of termite infestation. Secondly, there can be further time given to the development of alternative chemicals to deal with termites. This will take some time to enable adequate and substantial proof of its effectiveness. Thirdly, there can be further research into increasing the understanding of termites and located nests.
Madam Speaker, I believe that these are the kinds of steps that present a much more practical way of dealing with the matter in the immediate sense. Until these steps are taken it would seem foolish to rush with the ban on chlordane and heptachlor. If this is introduced as the Minister has suggested, the National Health and Medical Research Council would have to reveal new evidence to substantiate why. From my inquiries, there needs to be much more concrete evidence on alternatives before proceeding to banning termite organochlorine pesticides. Once again I would like to urge caution. If the Minister is interested in the persons that we got our information from, I am quite happy to make those names available.
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and Training, Minister for the Arts and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (10.06), in reply: Madam Speaker, I thank Mr Westende for his contribution. I might say at the outset, to pick up his concluding words, that indeed there has been caution on the part of the Government. I have to say that we have not rushed into this decision. There are many who would say that we have been far too slow in reaching it. I must dispute his claim that it is not demonstrated that there is a health hazard. I accept the advice of the National Health and Medical Research Council and the ample evidence that is broadly available in the community that it is a substance that is toxic and builds up in life forms and is, as it does so, damaging to those forms. When this is sprayed quite liberally around houses it is a quite significant problem.
The NHMRC has been considering the matter for some time. It originally proposed to phase out its use over five years. I understand that it is still considering the matter and there was a likelihood that it would phase it out within two years. Given the circumstances that apply in the ACT, I think our phasing it out within one year was a reasonable proposition. I note the comments that Mr Westende made about the Agricultural Council that met in Darwin and the comments it made, but I think they were looking at the matter from a different perspective.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .