Aerial spray ban in Governor’s Bay

Press, 14 June 1978, Page 2

Aerial spray ban in Governor’s Bay

Further aerial spraying oft I phenoxy herbicides, in-1 ; eluding 2,4,5-T, is unlikely i Ito be permitted in Gover-i Inor's Bay. j After hearing a deputation i •from residents protesting' ' against the spraying o« 2,4,5T by helicopter, the Mount I I Herbert County Council re[solved “that it be council policy that there be no aerial spraying of phenoxy ‘herbicides in the Governor’s Bay area. . .” Aircraft carrying phenoxy herbicides have been prohibited from flying over Governor’s Bay.

This did not mean that the council was completely opposed to the aerial spraying t.of phenoxy herbicides, the > chairman (Mr D. J. Blakely) . said.

“Basically, I suppose we I are banning it; we don’t want any more aerial spraying in Governor’s Bay. But lit is possible that if somelone had a safe proposal we ■ would still consider it,” he

jsaid. ! The restriction was unlikely to aggravate the noxiousweed problem in the area, said Mr Blakely. Ground ; spraying was still acceptable. Irrespective of the council’s decision, it was unlikely that there would have been ; further aerial spraying. Con- | tractors were not keen to work in an area where there I was opposition from residents. he said. Personally, he did not be- • lieve there was any danger from the aerial spraying, but the residents did, and the

council respected their fears. Mr Blakely would not say i how the council would eni force its decision. However, ihe said that most people involved with noxious weeds were practical people who I would respect the council’s wishes.

■ “We are very pleased. It 11 is a start,” said Mr S. M. (Murray, a member of the ■ committee formed in Gover>'nor’s Bay to seek the abolij tion of all aerial spraying of 2,4,5-T in the area. His committee had asked for aerial spraying to be banned over a greater area than that finally agreed to, and it had also asked for a ban on air-blast spraying. “This has the same drift factor,” he said. Nevertheless, the committee was satisfied with the progress made. If further evidence about the dangers of 2,4,5-T came to light, the committee would then go back to the council and press for what it had originally asked. j “we get our water off our 'roofs. We must have some (protection,” said Mr Murray. The partial ban on the I use of 2,4,5-T by the Victorian State Government lent weight to the campaign in (Governor’s Bay, he said. He was “disgusted" that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr ■ Maclntyre) had refused to (take any action when approached through the member of Parliament for Lyttelton (Miss C. E. Dewe). “He ihas the power to take action I and enforce it.” The approximate area in ’

Governor’s Bay in which aerial spraying is no longer permitted is between Church Lane and the Summit Road in the south and from Sugarloaf to Sandy Bay in the north.