The major problem with water safety in Tasmania is the lack of protection of drinking water catchments. The other problem is the loss of potentially food producing land to forestry.

The acreage of forestry plantations has increased significantly in Break O’Day (and many other) catchments in the last 10 years. Forestry companies such as Gunns and FEA do not and are not required to inform water bodies or other water users, which pesticides they are using on any specific plantation site. They say that they use only a small number of pesticides which can be found in publically available documentation such as the APVMA website. 

These databases are not complete and research permits given by the APVMA allow the use of some pesticides which cannot be identified other than after an accidental spill because research permits are ‘commercial-in-confidence’. These companies comply with the Forest Practices Code (FPC). The Good Neighbour Charter does not extend to information regarding the use of specific pesticides being shared with water users.

The plantation establishment at Seaview caused a public outcry in 1994 because of water contamination from simazine. The BODC and the public subsequently asked at that time for aerial spraying of pesticides to cease.

Gunns will soon harvest by clearfell and re-establish the Seaview plantation (George River catchment). They have stated that they will use pesticides but will not produce a spray plan stating that this is an in-house document and does not come under the Forest Practice Plan already detailed for Seaview. They have also declined to name any pesticides that may be used, except to their immediate neighbours at the time immediately prior to aerial application as per the Forest Practice Code.

Gunns has now informed BODCRG ( 25-2-09 meeting with Jim Wilson, NE Plantations) that there is no actual site – plantation - monitoring by Gunns after pesticide use and that Gunns relies on DPIW monitoring to undertake their compliance monitoring.

In the UK, a High Court ruling issued on 14 Nov 2008 from Mr. Justice Collins, stated that the UK Government has been acting unlawfully in its policy and approach in relation to the use of pesticides in crop spraying and that the risk to the general public, drinking water and the environment from pesticide spray events was unacceptable.
The conditions here regarding pesticide use are worse than they are in the UK.

The Department of Public Health is ultimately responsible for drinking water safety.  As they rely on DPIW pesticide monitoring, are they really comfortable with this level of risk for their consumers?  Are we as consumers comfortable and accepting of this approach?

Unless action is taken at all levels of Government to modify the actions ‘removing all impediments to forestry’ then these types of practice continue. Agriculture may not be regulated more health consciously as the contrast with forestry would be even more apparent.  Who takes on the potential risk for large health costs to the people and the environment of Tasmania?

Water safety and security, food quality and cost and the need to decrease ourselves from unwanted pesticide exposures are only part of the problem, but they affect us all.  MIS schemes simply exacerbate these problems; who has the reins?

Dr Alison Bleaney