Page 908 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 25 July 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR WHALAN (Minister for Industry, Employment and Education) (9.25): Mr Speaker, these two amendments are not acceptable to the Government. We will be voting against them and urging other members of the Assembly to support the Government in this particular matter. I am sure, Bernard, if you had an open mind on the matter, I would be able to convince you and I shall try to do so.
Mr Collaery: I am all ears.
MR WHALAN: I have heard that about you, too. The fact of the matter is that the two sections relate to two quite important areas of this legislation. Clause 19 relates to a special permit - usually in a commercial situation - to use a chemical. In most cases, that would be a chemical which was established in use, but on the register of - - -
A member: No, it is not on the register. It would be unregistered chemicals.
MR WHALAN: Sorry; or it might be unregistered. Definitionally, we would expect that that would be extremely toxic and it would have a lasting effect on human health and/or the environment. So, in the circumstances where we are dealing with dangerous chemicals which are acknowledged as such, it is not unreasonable, and the Government urges that it is not unreasonable, to have the registrar consider whether the applicant is a fit and proper person.
Notwithstanding what the Senate Regulations and Ordinances Committee might think about these sorts of things, I think it is appropriate in these circumstances. So, under a restricted permit, the registrar should consider whether the person had previous convictions under this legislation or under similar legislation; whether the applicant has a history of mental instability, for example; and whether or not the person is competent to handle or to use the pesticides in a responsible and safe manner. Those are all elements which would go towards establishing whether that person was fit and proper.
Clause 28 would apply to a scientific application. It is clear that these are new chemicals and there would be very little historical information. Earlier, Mr Collaery referred to the registrar being a person who would have a vast library of information and all resources at his disposal but, of course, in the case of new chemicals these would be untested. For that reason, with the lack of historical information, it would be quite likely, and indeed probable, that such chemicals would be likely to be toxic. We would have no idea of the long-term effects on human beings, animals or the environment. In those circumstances, yet again it would be appropriate that the registrar be entitled to apply the same tests in relation to "fit and proper person" as we mentioned in relation to clause 19.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .