The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [9.32 p.m.]: I wish to bring to the attention of the House the irresponsible use of agricultural chemicals. The term "irresponsible" does not come from a radical environment group but was used by the Gunnedah chemical liaison group when commenting on the cloud of cotton pesticide that enveloped Gunnedah in March this year. The group is dominated by chemical users. It is keen to have better controls on the use of pesticides. The group proposes voluntary guidelines developed for the area, and for many years has made a plea for those guidelines to be followed.

The Namoi Valley Independent reported that the group said, "No-one has the right to impinge upon his neighbours." This is commonly called chemical trespass. In the Gunnedah area people are all too familiar with the presence of different pesticides in the air. The Environment Protection Authority and local health authorities are apparently investigating the many complaints made by residents about health effects from the most recent incident.
Page 464
People complained about headaches, eye irritation, nausea and breathlessness.

For many years the people of Gunnedah have suffered as cotton took over agricultural lands. Cotton being farmed in a valley is prone to temperature inversions that trap a chemical cloud. A dozen or more sprays are used on cotton each season. Even with the bacillus tahuringensis [BT] cotton, which is supposed to lead to less spraying for one pest, the cotton bollworm, there are still many sprays per season for other pests and defoliation. There are many doubts that BT will lead to an improvement, particularly if the pest becomes resistant.

The cotton industry claimed in its defence that the most recent incident was the fault of an errant operator, but how many errant operators are there? Is it the same operator that contaminated beef recently, causing a scare in our export markets? Is it the same operator responsible for pesticide residues in tank water in numerous parts of the State? Is it the same one that is partly responsible for the 63 per cent of New South Wales inland river samples that had endosulfan residues above the Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council guidelines last cotton spraying season?

The spraying of pesticides is out of control in New South Wales. The case is well proven that voluntary guidelines will not work. A big part of the problem is the weak legislation in this State - the prosecution powers and offences do not worry any errant operator, let alone make the industry operate to best practice.

Self-regulation is a dangerous fool’s paradise promoted by the industry. One needs only to look at the cotton industry’s best management practice and good neighbourhood programs. They identify a whole range of farming practices from good to very bad. They then go on to tell the farmer to become "self aware" through a self-assessment process. But is any action to upgrade farming practices guaranteed? No. This is because there is no regulation that forces any action. The farmer can find any number of reasons not to act - too difficult, too busy, costs too much, not enough time to get further information, "maybe next season" and so on.

Cotton Australia cannot force its members to do anything; it is captured by vested interests. Rather than pretending that cotton farmers will change quickly and avoid the worst type of practices identified in the manual, we should ban those bad practices altogether. Otherwise rural New South Wales will continue to be poisoned - its people, water supplies, crops, cattle and the natural environment. Industry and government should stop defending the indefensible and a minority of farmers. Most of rural New South Wales wants better pesticide controls, not a repeat of the 1998-99 spraying season come October 1999 into next year. That would be a disaster. The Carr Government must take urgent action - during this session of Parliament - to protect the people and the environment of rural New South Wales.