Page 796 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 9 March 2005

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

of glyphosate; Brush-off, which is the common name, 600 grams per kilogram of metsulfuron methyl; Cutout 63.2 grams per kilogram of metsulfuron methyl and 760.5 grams per kilogram of glyphosate; Velmac granules, 150 grams per kilogram of hexazinone under controlled release; Velpar DF, 750 grams per kilogram of hexazinone; Crossbow, 200 grams per kilogram of metsulfuron methyl and 260 grams per litre of picloram. Note, no 24D.

It is not necessary for ACT Forests to conduct research of its own into the safety of herbicides. ACT Forests complies with the regulations established by specialist regulatory authorities. All weed control operations involving herbicides are conducted in accordance with environmental authorisation No 0011 issued by the Environment Protection Authority.

The authorisation allows the use of “agricultural and veterinary chemicals registered by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority” and requires the authorisation holder to ensure that agricultural and veterinary chemicals are used in accordance with the directions specified. The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) is an Australian government authority responsible for the assessment and registration of pesticides and veterinary medicines.

As a general policy position, ACT Forests favours the use of low-residual chemicals in preference to more aggressive herbicides, especially within a water catchment. An example is the use of Roundup in preference to Grazon.

The movement of soils from chemically treated areas is minimised in the same way as movement from untreated areas, using measures such as contour ripping. Due to the preference for using low-residual chemicals and application of chemicals during dry weather, the chance of affected soil washing into water supplies is very low.”

Personal explanations

MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra): Mr Speaker, I would seek to make a personal explanation in accordance with standing order 46.

MR SPEAKER: Proceed.

MRS DUNNE: In answer to a question from one of his own members today, Mr Stanhope blatantly misrepresented a number of things that I had said and selectively quoted from a number of press releases, and I would like to quote from those press releases to put things in context.

The first press release he quoted from was dated 5 November 2003 and is headed “Non-urban report implementation needs ‘cultural revolution’”. And yes, it is correct that I welcomed the release of the non-urban study’s final report Shaping our territory, labelling it a sound document providing clear steps forward.

What Mr Stanhope failed to say was that most of the rest of the press release was critical of the failures in planning, as I said at the time, because, basically, the implementation of Shaping our territory was wrested from the planning department and the planning

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