Mike Elliott: Benlate Motion Defeated

Extract from Hansard

Legislative Council
31 October 2001

Mike Elliott
Leader Australian Democrats
Member of the Legislative Council

Parliament Index
2001 Autumn Sitting Index
Browse by Subject
Search all Democrats material
About the SA Parliament
Hansard on line

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: As I indicated when moving this motion, this has been quite a saga. What saddens me is that the responses I have been hearing so far suggest to me that we really have not made any progress on this matter whatsoever. I note, for instance, that the Hon. Terry Roberts has moved an amendment which has the effect of asking the government to investigate circumstances surrounding horticulturalists whose crops are affected by Benlate with the intention of offering appropriate assistance. We were there in that position quite some years ago.

The department looked at the matter. I spoke with a number of departmental officials on a number of occasions and, certainly, I formed the opinion that, first, they did not have a clue what was going on and, second, perhaps, that having given their initial advice they were going to stick by it regardless of any new evidence which might have come forward to the contrary. As I have said in this place on a couple of occasions now, and on one occasion over a period of a couple of hours, I visited the United States and spent a great deal of time talking to experts in universities in their equivalents of our departments of agriculture and with lawyers who represented people who had litigated in the area and I returned absolutely convinced, not just by the arguments but by the science, that Benlate had the ability to cause damage to crops under particular sets of circumstances-circumstances which related largely to heat and humidity and which affected all of the people who claim they had problems in South Australia.

Without exception, every person in South Australia who had complained about problems had been working in a hothouse environment, and so all the precursors for the difficulties that occurred were there-and they were very early on-and at that stage they were coming from people who did not understand the science of it, if you like, and certainly did not know that it was all happening basically in that hothouse environment which has later proven to be the case. It is worth noting that whilst DuPont had never admitted any liability, it has paid out a large number of people in the United States and, more recently, has paid out a number of people in Australia, including a number of people in South Australia.

There have been significant payouts without DuPont admitting liability, but the payouts appear to have gone to those people who were sufficiently persistent with legal representation and who could afford that legal representation to keep the case going. I cannot personally say that in particular individual cases Benlate did or did not do damage and therefore there should be payouts, but I do believe that people have been affected by Benlate as a result of their crops having been affected and, at this stage, they have not received any compensation, whether it be with or without the admission of any liability.

Frankly, I find the whole thing quite disappointing. The weight of evidence generally is overwhelming and it should not be necessary for people to be involved in extensive and expensive litigation before they can obtain any level of justice. What I find even more disappointing is that, frankly, the government and government departments have been non-helpful. In fact, if anything, at times have acted in a negative sense in relation to people who have suffered these difficulties. I think, at best, it shows a level of mean spirit and, in my view, it also shows a level of ignorance and non-caring.

When one considers that in South Australia probably only three or four people of whom I am aware claim that they have been damaged by Benlate and have not received compensation-as I said, largely because they simply cannot afford to pursue the matter-the fact that they are being left to whither without any support reflects, in my view, very poorly on the government. The opposition's moving an amendment, which, basically, as I said, takes us back to where we were probably six or seven years ago in terms of saying that the government should investigate, in my view, is not helpful. It indicates to me that the Labor Party, despite the fact that this issue has been in this parliament on a number of occasions, has never taken the time to really look at it. That is disappointing as well.

There are some important matters of justice in all this, which, whilst it might now affect only three or four people, are important because of the precedent they set, that is, precedent in terms of the way in which governments, parliaments and also companies behave in these circumstances. In years to come people will look back on all this and we will all be judged by the mean spiritedness, or otherwise, of members of this place. I urge all members to support the motion and to support it without amendment.

The Council divided on the question: that the words proposed to be struck out by the Hon. T.G. Roberts stand part of the motion: