<< Back to article
Can this be true? Many believe that David Llewellyn’s policies as Health Minister threatened the lives of Tasmanias. Now you’re saying he’s at it again....this time from Agriculture.
Tasmanians have the right to ask, is this what David Llewellyn is all about? Causing us harm?
And do we really pay our government to give out licences to groups who may poison us?
If Mr Llewellyn does this, who will be liable in the event of toxic effects on us and our children?
I pay taxes in part for the better public protection that can be achieved by reducing risks. Mr Llewellyn’s approach would increase them.
I for one am not prepared to give up my personal health and safety just so that someone can spray poisons into our air.
We must show our government that we expect our paid representatives to care as much about our health as we do.
If Mr Llewellyn cannot bring himself to this, then the Premier should put him where he cannot do further harm to Tasmanians.
Posted by on 04/07/06 at 11:01 AMAs loathed as I am to get into an irrational debate with Ms Rosser I cannot help myself. She states: “If their recommendations are to be accepted — and Minister David Llewellyn has said he has done just that — exclusions zones around schools will be cut from 1 kilometre to 100 metres and the requirement to notifiy immediate neighbours will be dropped altogether.”
Not true. The ASCHEM recommendations are just that, recommendations. It doesn’t appear yet to be a new code of practice at all. They therefore do not imply immediate neighbours will not need to notified under a new yet to be revealed code of practice. Hard as it must be, carefully read the document on the link you provided. ASCHEM are recommending an absolute buffer of 100m on schools apparently regardless of whether school is in or not.
The current code of practice requires “An agricultural chemical product may not be discharged during school hours, over or within 1 kilometre of any school” and “If you intend to spray property that is within 1 kilometre of a school, you must advise the school Principal of where you intend to spray and provide details of the chemical products to be used.” The new recommendation is in fact tougher than what is in the current code of practice.
Just another example of Ms Rossers inability to get it right!
Posted by on 04/07/06 at 12:39 PMCould Brenda please explain exactly how the health of children in schools can increase the profitability of aerial spraying?
If I wanted my crops sprayed, what financial incentive would there be for me to be concerned with anyone else’s health?
Or is the suggestion that some namby-pamby, do-gooder altruism should be sufficient motivation? That doesn’t pay the bills.
Posted by Justa Bloke on 04/07/06 at 01:28 PMWhy bother with new regulation when the old ones have worked perfectly? There has never been a successful bust under the existing regs, with the government exulting that a succesful prosecution is all but impossible unless you are spraying a designer chemical whose effects have been exhaustively documented.
I think the new regs are just a ritual gesture by modern pollies to show their complete subservience to the corporate organ grinder. If you were someone like David Llewellyn, what else would you have to offer?
John Hayward
Posted by on 05/07/06 at 11:05 AMPeeWee, it would be appropriate for you to read what Llewellyn is saying in Parliament before accusing me of being inaccurate. Hansard is available online afterall.
Hansard 15th June 2006, House of Reps
MR LLEWELLYN: “… Nevertheless, the focus on aerial spraying provided a good opportunity to review the regulatory controls on this activity, to make sure they align with community expectations and current standards.
I recently accepted the recommendations of the Agricultural, Silvicultural and Veterinary Chemicals Council in this regard. . . .
“...Further exclusion zones will include.. ten metres around any river, waterway, water body, water-logged area or aquaculture tank stands or ponds -
Mr McKim - This is worse than the Forest Practices Code!
Ms Putt - Try 50 metres. [BR: Is Ms Putt trying to kill us too?]
Mr LLEWELLYN - and 100 metres around schools, creches, child care centres, hospitals and aged-care facilities. . .”
________PeeWee, could you explain what the hours for spraying onto hospitals will be? Between 9am and 3pm, perhaps???
The existing code has always been a simple piece of propaganda. Never there to be enforced. For example, take this paragraph: “ 2.You must not apply an agricultural chemical product at variance with the label instructions, except under a permit granted by the National Registration Authority or the Registrar of Chemical Products.”
Most label instructions say don’t contaminate water.
http://www.geocities.com/rosserbj/widespread_contam.htmlPosted by on 06/07/06 at 10:31 AMDear Pee Wee
Is that “pee wee” as in ‘DIPWIE’ or as in ‘small’? Oh, I get it… same thing. Very droll.
In terms of ‘recommendations’, Hansard or not, LLewellyn did say in the press release that he was going to adopt the recommendations so if you can’t take the word of a Minster of the Crown in the State of Tasmania, who can you trust ? Since you weren’t being ironic and should pigs fly and these ‘recommendations’ not be adopted that would be because they have suddenly become ‘non core’ promises.
The Minister’s statement says that the Code of Practice will be scrapped and new regulations to replace them. The recommendations clearly drop the need to notify (see point 7 of ASCHEM’s recommendations).
I have to agree that that ‘school hours’ under the current guidelines (if quoted by you accurately) is ambiguous. Schools vary in their hours slightly; school terms vary slightly between public and private; does this include early morning band practice and Saturday sport times but really 100metres and not advising the principal, creche director etc ?
I can imagine a scenario of the helicopted coming over at 100m+poofteenth (technical measurement) and spraying. Since you never get winds in Tasmania, there would be no chance of it going over the sausage sanga fundraising BBQ on Saturday, the kids’ bubblers, sandwiches, clothing, skin. If people should have an asthma attack, anaphalaxis shock etc what do we tell the paramedics to look for ? If the helicopter pilot is distracted and catches power poles (oh, that’s right - no helicopter crashes in Tasmania carrying toxic loads occur do they St Helens ?) and he/she crashes and can’t tell authorities what the load was - how do you efficiently address the sick’s problem ?
So what if herbicide lands on the playing field - that’s good for the turf grower’s to have a steady supply of work isn’t it ? Insecticide instead of herbicide ? How thoughtful to kill all those pesky bugs lying around schools, hospitals etc.
In closing, just because you find Brenda’s diligence in pointing out this lunacy irritating does not mean that she does not have a point. Maybe you should check whether your irrational bias and prejudice against her is warranted. Try looking at the Senate’s investigation into Aerial Spraying and try asking the residents of Moree and Wee Waa in NSW who are still dying despite the unsafe practices having been curtailed in NSW (because the lead time for health issues to complete can be a long one).
Posted by on 06/07/06 at 11:47 AM
