Territory Stories

Parliamentary record : Part I debates (02 October 1990)



Parliamentary record : Part I debates (02 October 1990)


Debates for 5th Assembly 1987 - 1990; ParliamentNT; Parliamentary Record; 5th Assembly 1987 - 1990




Made available by the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory





Publisher name

Northern Territory Legislative Assembly

Place of publication


File type



Attribution International 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)

Copyright owner

Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory



Parent handle


Citation address


Page content

DEBATES - Tuesday 2 October 1990 ADJOURNMENT Mr COULTER (Leader of Government Bus i ness) : Mr Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn~ Mrs PADGHAM-PURICH (Koolpinyah): Mr Speaker, this morning I had the opportunity to ask 2 questions, 1 of the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries and the other of the Minister for Health and Community Services. In relation to the question put to the Minister for Health and Community Services ,wh i ch referred to the perceived misuse of schedule 7 poisons in horticultural'and farming practice, the minister .asked if I had any suggestions, and I will be writing to him on that. However, I do not believe that any big changes are necessary, either to the act or the regulations. Perhaps both could be amended slightly or perhaps only one. To some extent, there is a similarity between the spraying of horticultural poisons and the practice of burning off illegitimately. You cannot get a permit to burn legitimately unless you have your fire breaks in and you have a reasonable history of doing the right thing, and you burn at a particular time .of the day. I have never been asked to notify neighbours. I do not know whether that is ani ni t i at i ve by the fi re service people or whether they know that I do not have immediate neighbours but, if I di d have nei ghbours, I wou 1 d agree to not i fy them if I intended to burn off, and the same cou 1 d app ly' to the ,sprayi ng of schedule 7 poi sons. I bel ieve that it would be reasonably simple to alter the 1 icences that are issued to: peop 1 e who request them and who have a reason to be sprayi ng schedule 7 poisons, and a principal consideration, should be the notification of immed i ate nei ghbours. Another factor that could be cons i dered is wi nd drift, although the person who sprays with very expensive schedule 7 poisons and does not cons i derwi nd dri ft is rather silly. These poi sons are very expensive and, if the spray drifts away from its direct target, it is wasted from the point of view of the .person spraying. When a responsible person uses these sprays, he does it in the correct way. Not ifi cat i on is gi ven to neighbours, spraying is not done in windy conditions and general consideration for the well-being of the community is uppermost. I have received a considerable number of complaints. I have been speaking on this subject for about a year. I would :like to stress that, in all the comp 1 ai nts that have been put to me by people ,who are concerned about these sprays, the comp 1 a i nants say they do not want to see a ban placed on the use of' sprays. They. recogni se that people have mango trees, rambutans or whatever and that they need to spray them from time to time to eliminate pests. However, they do want consideration to be given to their own welfare as well as the welfare of the people who have the trees and who spray the poisons, and I can see their point of view. They are expressing a legitimate concern. I think that consideration could be given also to including in the terms of the licence a requirement that neighbours be notified of the actual poi son that '. is bei ng sprayed, because some poi sons that I use have a vi 1 e smell ... Mr Collins: It is hard if you have a greenie for a neighbour. Mrs PADGHAM-PURICH: No. It is not greenies who are complaining. These are just ordinary people. There are some situations where the poisons that are used, whilst perhaps not of the schedu 1 e 7 vari ety, have an extremely vil e, obnoxi ous 10 713