Ms JEANES(12.48 p.m.) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I can assure you that I will not express my eloquence overly in the committee at this time.

The purpose of the Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Bill 1996 is to bring the existing legislation governing the trade in hazardous wastes into line with our international obligations under the Basel convention and with the practices of our trading partners. The issue of the transboundary movement of hazardous wastes raises significant moral questions, which the Basel convention attempts to address. Developed countries should not be profiting from the practice of dumping their hazardous wastes on developing countries, as those countries have a reduced capacity to deal with the wastes.

Whilst the economic and social advancement of many developing countries must, indeed, receive the greatest possible assistance from Australia, we have a responsibility to provide that assistance in a manner which does not compromise the ecological integrity of those countries or the health of their people. In fact, many of the world's developing countries are paying a very high ecological price for their economic advancement; and their consequential social advancement is, therefore, significantly compromised. They also pay a very high price through the exploitation of workers whose health and, indeed, whose lives are put at risk for rewards that are often negligible.

Since 1989, when the initial bill was enacted, Australia has found ways to circumvent its obligations under the spirit of the convention. We have transported hazardous waste on the basis that we are exporting materials for recycling. Australia is not currently required to notify the country of destination or obtain its consent under existing legislation. Nor is there any effective requirement on the exporter to ensure that the materials will be dealt with in an environmentally responsible manner.

One of the materials we are exporting is lead battery waste to the Philippines, Taiwan, Thailand and Indonesia. I will use this as an example of the shortcomings in the present act. There is considerable anecdotal and scientific evidence of lead contamination around lead acid battery recycling factories in Indonesia. I would like to quote from a recent Greenpeace report about the effects of a local lead processing plant on the surrounding community. The report, dated March 1994, says:

Clouds of smoke from the factory have been descending on the community since (the company) began operation. Waste water from the plant is discharged into local waterways, which are used by villagers to irrigate their rice fields. Local residents complain that ashes from the factory often fall in their wells and on their food, and that the effluent from the factory is draining into the local irrigation system. Many villagers complain of being sick, that everybody has a cough, and half of them cough blood.

Tests performed by the Indonesian government on a sample of workers in the industry found that they had blood lead levels in the range of 40 to 80 micrograms per decilitre.

Honourable members will remember the outcry in the Australian community in 1993 over blood lead levels and their health consequences. The National Health and Medical Research Council revealed that new research indicated that previously accepted blood lead levels of 25 micrograms per decilitre had been too high and that an alarm should be raised when blood lead levels reached 10 micrograms per decilitre.

The Australian community was angry in 1993 when it was realised that we had a problem with lead levels in our own children. Yet Australian companies are transporting hazardous wastes to countries where the processing of the materials contributes to the poisoning of their environments and their people, some of whom have blood lead levels up to four to eight times higher than the level we find acceptable. It is unconscionable that we should be outraged at the lead levels in our own children, but continue with practices that contribute to the lead poisoning of children in Indonesia or any other country.

The minister's second reading speech summarised the major features of the bill. But one of the most important features is that it will require exporters of hazardous wastes to ensure that the waste materials will be managed in an environmentally sound manner which protects human health and the environment before exportation is permitted. This is a significant advance to ensure that Australia meets its obligations under the Basel convention and I commend the bill to the committee.

I would just like to suggest that the previous speaker, the member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell), might wonder why the birds would come back after 10 years if they were going to continue to drink the same water which would no doubt have the same levels of cyanide in it.