Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 2 Hansard (28 February) . . Page.. 386 ..

MS HORODNY (continuing):

If the motion that I have put before you is passed, the inquiry will consider an assessment of the types and quantities of chemicals used in the ACT for weed and pest control. It will look at the effectiveness of existing weed and pest control programs that we use in the ACT. It will look at health and safety aspects of the use of these chemicals in the community and the OH and S consequences for workers who apply these chemicals. There are some real OH and S issues to do with contractors, who are not monitored, as well as people working directly for Urban Services.

Public notification is obviously a huge issue as well. There is a need for transparent processes to ensure community input on ACT chemical control programs. There is a need to integrate ESD precautionary principles, which I have already talked about. The impacts of chemicals on non-target fauna and flora are extremely important, as are the alternatives I have mentioned and any other relevant issues. We are also calling for a steering committee to oversee the work that the commissioner does. The commissioner is very happy for that steering committee to give him guidance and help on this very technical inquiry. We are calling for a person nominated by the Conservation Council, a person nominated from Landcare, a community health representative, a person nominated from the Australian Chemical Trauma Alliance - for obvious reasons, these people have the expertise on this issue - an entomologist, a plant biologist, and a union representative because, as I said, there are OH and S issues.

Mr Humphries: Is there someone from business as well?

MS HORODNY: This does not exclude other people from joining. If that is something that you are interested in adding, it can be discussed with the commissioner. It is not an exclusive list; it is an inclusive list. I commend this motion to the Assembly.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (11.40): Mr Speaker, the Government does not oppose this motion. I have a concern about an element of it, but essentially we do not oppose it. As members are aware from what Ms Horodny has just had to say, the Conservation Council of the South-East Region and Canberra has been active on this issue. Members will have seen some comment in the media by that organisation to raise this issue. It is an important issue and it deserves to be on the agenda of the community as we look at all the factors that contribute towards the good health of our environment.

The issue is the overall environmental impact of the use of chemicals in the ACT and how a balance should be struck between, on the one hand, using chemicals appropriately to control weeds and pests and, on the other hand, ensuring that there is not an impact on the environment which might not be monitored overall - that is, which is not determined by an individual's use of certain chemicals. It is an issue which I believe does need to be examined in a comprehensive way. The Commissioner for the Environment, in discussing this issue with the Conservation Council, I understand, has indicated his support for the concept and is willing to chair the inquiry that the motion refers to. In the circumstances, I think nothing should stand in the way of that proceeding to happen.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .