Environmental committees conference 2001
Is rural development and environmental sustainability incompatible?
Introduction
I am pleased to be able to present at our first attendance at the conference of parliamentary environment committees.
To me personally, this presentation today is significant for two reasons. Firstly, it represents the
Committee’s first report to the National Conference and secondly, it represents my last official duty as a member of the State Development Committee (for the past 6 years) and a member of the NSW Legislative Council (for the past 25 years).
The functions of the State Development Committee include consideration of:
 options for future policy directions and emerging issues to ensure that opportunities for sound growth and wise development for the benefit of the people of New South Wales are pursued
 any issues concerned with the problems or disadvantages uniquely or predominantly experienced in country areas, including the viability of cities and towns in those areas, and
 any issues concerned with economics and finances, resources and energy, transportation, tourism, public administration, local government, the Olympics, primary industry, industrial and technological developments and environmental issues in New South
Wales.
Historically speaking, policy agendas of rural development and environmental sustainability can present a perceived conflicting menu of interests. Add to this mix a committee membership that includes members of Country Labor, a Liberal from Lismore and a Green party member from
Byron Bay. On paper, this suggests a volatile formula of ideological interests. However, the dedicated and cooperative membership of this committee has ensured that balanced and effective reports are often achieved and dissenting reports are rarely a feature.
Indicative of the committee’s successful ability to traverse the tightrope of encouraging rural development while supporting environmental sustainability has been through its own paper usage!
I am proud to report that the committee has not only recently converted to printing its reports on 100% recycled paper, but also sources it from the Shoalhaven, a rural town on the South
Coast of NSW.
1

Environmental committees conference 2001
Environmental issues and the State Development Committee
Since the Committee’s inception in 1988, it has produced a number of reports focussing on environmental issues. These reports have covered subject matter including:
 coastal development, planning and management in NSW
 regional business development achieving sustainable growth
 waste minimisation and management
 fisheries management and resource allocation in NSW
 use and management of pesticides in NSW
Of the current inquiries that consider environmental issues, the committee is examining the implications for NSW of genetically modified, or GM, food.
The committee will be releasing its interim report on GM food in the near future that will present, among other things, an analysis of the recently enacted Gene Technology Act 2000. The final report will examine the environmental aspects of GMs as well as public health and economic issues. As much as I would love to discuss the environmental aspects of this fascinating issue of public interest, the report is still being crafted by the committee.
One report, on which I will now provide a synopsis, where rural development potentially conflicts with environmental sustainability is the inquiry into the use and management of pesticides in NSW.
Inquiry into use and management of pesticides in NSW
The inquiry into the use and management of pesticides in NSW presented a familiar theme before the committee – how to make recommendations to better regulate agricultural management practices to benefit the environment without detrimentally impacting on the viability of agricultural industries?
On 12 November 1998, the then Minister for the Environment, the Hon. Pam Allan, MP, requested the committee to conduct the inquiry in light of the widespread community consultation that was undertaken in 1997 by the NSW Environment Protection Authority and in consideration of the NSW Government’s Discussion Paper on Improving Pesticide Management in NSW.
The committee was requested to examine issues associated with all pesticide use in NSW and options for future policy and programs related to the management of pesticides, including all agricultural chemicals, having particular regard to:
 the sustainability of agricultural activities which currently rely on intensive pesticide use
 the social, health, environmental and trade interests of the agricultural and wider community, including the need for avoiding and reducing the risks associated with pesticide use
2

Environmental committees conference 2001
 the role of pesticide users, local government, State agencies and other stakeholders
(including environment and other community groups) in the resolution of local conflicts in relation to pesticide use, and
 any opportunities for industry to address the issues through research and development
(on aspects such as less pesticide-dependent plant varieties, improved pesticide products and application techniques) and the development and implementation of best management practices for pesticide use.
In referring the matter to the Standing Committee, the Minister recognised the complex nature of pesticide legislation and policy and its relative importance and sensitivity to the community.
The Standing Committee approached this inquiry with the understanding that the use and management of pesticides involved a delicate balance of public health, environmental and economic concerns. The Standing Committee had the benefit of applying the considerable work undertaken since 1997 by the NSW Environment Protection Authority to canvass public perception of possible amendments to the Pesticides Act 1978. With this information as a base, the Standing Committee sought to encompass a range of regulatory and policy measures available to manage pesticides, including environmental planning instruments, provisions of the Pesticide
Act 1978, and education and training.
The committee’s report reflects the overwhelming view of industry and a number of government organisations who indicated that the social, economic and environmental benefits of effectively managed pesticide use outweighed the risks. The agricultural industry, the largest user of pesticides, reported the influence of market demand for a reliable supply of low priced, high quality produce dictated their need for pesticide use. The committee received analytical evidence pertaining to the occurrence of pesticides in persons, livestock and water sources at sites extending up to 3.6 kilometres or more from the possible source. In many instances inadequate research has been undertaken to ascertain the consequences of pesticide occurrences.
The Committee also considered the instruments available for managing the use of pesticides in the community. A strong community message was received that measures needed to be implemented to minimise the occurrence of pesticide drift and contamination of non-target species or areas such as neighbouring property, watercourses and livestock. Economic losses incurred by livestock producers in domestic and overseas markets from endosulfan residues in cattle demonstrated the need to improve the way pesticides are managed.
What made this inquiry particularly interesting was that the issue of pesticide drift pitted two major agricultural industries against each other - the livestock industry, which needs to ensure low background levels of pesticide residues to maintain consumer confidence in its products, and the horticulture industry, which uses the same pesticides to maintain its viability. The Committee proposed several legislative and policy approaches that sought to protect both industries.
From a regulatory perspective, the committee reviewed the New South Wales Environment
Protection Authority’s options for amendment of the Pesticides Act 1978 and made a number of recommendations in that regard. The Committee supported removal of the high onus of proof required to prove an offender guilty of wilfully causing risk of injury or damage by a pesticide.
The Committee received views from a broad cross section of the community advocating a greater
3

Environmental committees conference 2001 sharing of responsibility and liability for the application of pesticides than was the case under that
Act. The Committee advocated the inclusion of provisions enabling clear delineation between the responsibility of the landowner and contracted professional to use pesticides. It was also recommended that penalties for breach of responsibility under the Act were to be weighted accordingly.
Part of the report is devoted to the role of planning in managing pesticide drift and issues raised about incompatible land uses and the application of buffer zones. As a case study of planning issues, the committee reviewed concerns raised by sections of the Central West community of
Dubbo regarding a proposed cotton development in the area. The introduction of regional agricultural plans in the form of regional environmental planning instruments was suggested as an innovative and flexible approach for progressing towards a resolution of these matters.
Finally, the Committee considered alternatives to the use of pesticides, such as focussing on the notion of the precautionary principle and organic farming. The Committee also noted a recent
CSIRO research program aiming to control termites and locusts by fungus.
In total, the Committee presented 48 recommendations to the Minister for the Environment. I am pleased to report that the NSW Government has taken on board the vast majority of the recommendations through its policies and through the enactment of the Pesticides Act 1999 (which repealed and replaced the 1978 Act). The Committee achieved an evenly balanced report that presented politically, environmentally and economically realistic solutions.
As an aside, the Greens member on the Committee did append a brief dissenting statement to the report where he believed the Committee did not go far enough. The entire deliberative process was, and still is, a cooperative and negotiated process. Nevertheless, such dissent will invariably occur where rural development challenges environmental sustainability! ends…………….
4