by clicking the arrows at the side of the page, or by using the toolbar.
by clicking anywhere on the page.
by dragging the page around when zoomed in.
by clicking anywhere on the page when zoomed in.
web sites or send emails by clicking on hyperlinks.
Email this page to a friend
Search this issue
Index - jump to page or section
Archive - view past issues
TAS Country : October 21st 2010
Friday, October 22, 2010 Tasmanian Country 15 Your Say email@example.com Parliament has final say on forestry WHILE various stakeholders and parties to forestry negotiations will rightly seek outcomes in the interests of their members and supporters, it is ultimately the role of Parliament to determine the best interests for Tasmania. The Tasmanian Forests State- ment of Principles has unfortun- ately laid out an agenda to ban the sustainable harvesting of our native forests that would be a disaster for Tasmania. I am pleased that the Legislative Council recently voted unani- mously to reject such a ban on the active management of our public native forests. In unanimously supporting my motion, a clear parliamentary boundary has now been set on these continuing forestry nego- tiations. We can sustainably man- age our public native forests for triple bottom-line outcomes --- economic, environmental and social --- and we must continue to do so into the future, for the sake of future generations. The active management of our public native forests can deliver a truly sustainable industry that all our communities can be proud of, catering to new industries that can flourish in a carbon-constrained world. A statement of principles from vested interests, even if well inten- tioned, must not be allowed to override the best interests of Tas- mania. GREG HALL, MLC Deputy president and Member for Western Tiers Hydro must be fair over water I REFER to the letter ''Hydro aims for fairest deal'' (Tasmanian Country, October 15). What is fair to the Ouse farmers by diverting the Ouse River, north via Li- awenee Canal and the Great Lake? This was a beautiful ri- ver flowing into the Der- went River catchment. I have seen it now as a degraded and at times a slim-ridden drain. Hydro has never been ''fair'' when it comes to water. That is why the Legislat- ive Council forced the Hydro to concede to the farmers when they diverted the Ouse River. Now the Hydro want to change the rules and take away the farmers' rights. That is not fair. The legis- lation to protect the far- mers from the Hydro ac- tions was not ''loose wording in legislation'', the legislation was amend- ed specifically to protect the rights of the affected farmers. I hope the Legislative Council stands up to the Hydro's bullying tactics again, as they did in the past. PETER McKAY Former Legislative Council member for Pembroke Chemical ban is only the first step THE Federal Government's decision to join 60 other countries in banning the toxic insecticide, Endo- sulfan is welcome and rep- resents a long-overdue rec- ognition that persistent organics pollutants have no place in Tasmanian agricul- ture. The Endosulfan ban is welcome, but the State and Federal governments must take a similar view of other toxic pesticides and herbi- cides used in farming. While this is a good start, Tasmanians remain con- cerned about the contami- nation of waterways through the ongoing use of triazine herbicides. Like Endosulfan, the tria- zines are linked to severe environmental and health risks. It is thought to cause genetic defects in human cells, chemical castration in amphibians and cancer in animals. The current practice of banning chemicals once they have been determined unsafe, as was the case with Endosulfan, is outdated and irresponsible. How many of our water- ways will be contaminated before the appropriate auth- orities decide a ban on the triazines is needed? The onus should not be on governments, the com- munity and independent re- searchers to show that these chemicals are unsafe, but for chemical manufacturers to prove their products are safe as a fundamental con- dition of registration. The Government needs to re- verse the onus of proof as a matter of urgency. In the case of Endosulfan, the APVMA only took ac- tion when a proposed global ban under the Stockholm Convention was heard. Prior to this they had advo- cated for its continued use in farming. I have to won- der how long the APVMA would have continued licensing Endosulfan if rely- ing solely on Australian attitudes and advice. The two-year phase-out period is unacceptable. Once a chemical is deemed unsafe, what is the rationale for continuing to permit its use? A ban should be im- mediate, and farmers with stocks of Endosulfan should be compensated. The Greens welcome the ban on Endosulfan because it is good for the environ- ment and good for farmers as it will help to underpin our claim of being clean and green. Hopefully this will be the beginning of the process of reversing the onus of proof from the community to the chemical companies, with the promise of better out- comes for agriculture and public health. SENATOR CHRISTINE MILNE Deputy Leader Austalian Greens References: 1. Of the endectocide class. 2. Shoop et al (1996) - "Eprinomectin is the most potent broad-spectrum avermectin/ milbemycin identified to date." 3. See product label for full details. 4. Baggott et al (1999); Paul et al (2000). Merial Australia Pty Ltd, Level 6, 79 George Street, Parramatta NSW 2150 (ABN 53 071 187 285). IVOMEC, EPRINEX and the cattle head are registered trademarks of Merial Limited. 2009 Merial Limited. All rights reserved. IVEP-09-063. Adze 4575 THE POUR-ON WITH MORE GRUNT. EPRINEX -- the most potent pour-on on the market1,2 . KILLS WORMS Kills more species and stages of worms than any other pour-on3 KILLS WORMS The fastest acting endectocide available4 KILLS WORMS FOR Kills more species of worms for longer than any other pour-on LONGER FASTER MORE
October 14th 2010
October 28th 2010