Lord Howe Island First Peoples Association and Australian Pesticides & Veterinary Medicines Authority

[2019] AATA 748

Lord Howe Island First Peoples Association and Australian Pesticides & Veterinary Medicines Authority [2019] AATA 748 (18 April 2019)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number(s):      2018/5258

Re:Lord Howe Island First Peoples Association

APPLICANT

And  Australian Pesticides & Veterinary Medicines Authority

RESPONDENT

AndLord Howe Island Board

SECOND RESPONDENT

Decision

Tribunal:Deputy President B W Rayment OAM QC

Date:18 April 2019

Place:Sydney

The decision under review is set aside and in substitution the Tribunal directs that the condition of the permit be altered so as to be consistent with the document attached to the Tribunal’s reasons and to conform with paragraph 57 of those reasons.

..........................[sgd]..............................................

Deputy President B W Rayment OAM QC

Catchwords

ENVIRONMENT – proposal to eradicate rats on Lord Howe Island using brodifacoum – limitations on jurisdiction of Tribunal to review parts of permit – expedited hearing – decision under review set aside and substituted 

Legislation

Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Act 1994 (Cth) s 112

Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994 (Cth) s 5A, cl 112, 114, 167

Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Administration) Act 1992 (Cth)

Lord Howe Island Act 1953 (NSW)

Cases

National Registration Authority v Barnett and others (1998) 83 FCR 222

Secondary Materials

NSW EPA Pesticide Order AIR-1

REASONS FOR DECISION

Deputy President B W Rayment OAM QC

18 April 2019

1. The applicant is an unincorporated association many of whose members reside or own property on Lord Howe Island. Lord Howe island is a world heritage listed place, and a favoured tourist destination. It has permanent residents numbering between 350 and 450 persons and 16,000 tourists visit there each year, many of them parents with children accompanying them. It has a large and fascinating birdlife, some of them unique in the world, and fish abound in the surrounding sea and to a lesser extent in freshwater streams. The fish are important economically and as a source of food of some of the birdlife. It has many beaches and a coral lagoon. It is about the level of Port Macquarie, some 800 kilometres to the north of Sydney and about 600 kilometres east of Port Macquarie, in the direction of New Zealand. Its size is 14.55 square kilometres and the inhabited settlement comprises about four square kilometres of that area. The forested section occupies about three quarters of the island and is protected as a national park and the surrounding waters are a protected marine park under Commonwealth and State legislation.

2. Some years ago the Board decided, after a plebiscite, to attempt the complete eradication of rats and mice from the island. That decision (and particularly the way in which it is to be implemented) was controversial among the Island residents, hence these proceedings, which essentially challenge the conditions under which the permit authorised the eradication to occur, in the interests of humans, birdlife, fish, other wildlife and the ecology generally. Those interests are no doubt strong motivations of most if not all residents and persons connected with the island, whether they support or oppose the eradication project.

3. These proceedings have been expedited and evidence concluded last week.  The expedition was necessary because the Board proposes to commence pellet distribution next month. A view took place over last weekend in company with legal representatives of the parties.

4. If the present applicants were able to seek relief about the authorisations contained in the permit or more general relief about the grant of the permit itself, it seems possible that they would do so. Some 92 island residents (some of whom do not belong to the applicant association) recently signed a petition signalling their opposition to the eradication project. A wider challenge would raise squarely for decision whether the eradication by the rat poison is necessary or desirable, in the light of its consequences, especially for birdlife, fish and wildlife. As I discuss below, jurisdictional constraints prevent the consideration of authorisations contained in the permit, especially because of an existing decision of the Federal Court, which binds me. Otherwise, I apprehend that evidence may have been led before the Tribunal about whether eradication was necessary at all, or whether it might have been effected by means other than the use of rat poison, or the rat poison selected.

5. Issues unaffected by jurisdictional limitations on the scope of this review which were investigated in the evidence include whether sufficient has been done in formulating conditions to mitigate risks to human health particularly in the settlement areas of the island, but also elsewhere, and a series of important ecological conditions.  

6. To some extent the evidence led before me has canvassed whether the desired eradication will or will not be a success, which might have been relevant to the question whether particular conditions said to be necessary to the success of the eradication may be modified. Having considered that evidence I have concluded that there are reasonable prospects of the eradication succeeding, perhaps less so in the case of the mice than in the case of the rats, in the light of eradication experience elsewhere in the world.

7. The first respondent is a Commonwealth instrumentality which operates under the Agvet Code, a Code set out in the schedule to the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994 (Cth), and under a number of other Acts including the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Act 1994 (Cth) and the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Administration) Act 1992 (Cth). Regulations have also been made under the Code Act and the Administration Act.

8. The second respondent (the Board) is constituted by the Lord Howe Island Act 1953 (NSW) and has the responsibility of administering the affairs of Lord Howe Island, which is part of New South Wales. It is subject to Ministerial direction, and it is implicit in the funds provided by the NSW government and in the issue of a number of licences, permissions, and a control order issued in February of this year that the eradication project, at least generally, enjoys the support of the NSW government.

9. The Board obtained from the first respondent a permit which was in force from 24 August 2018 and endures until 31 August 2020, which states that it is issued under section 112(2) of the Agvet Code and that it authorises certain things to be done in relation to a rat poison known as PestOff Rodent Bait 20R, a product which contains 0.02 g/kg brodifacoum as the only active constituent, and is proposed to be used in the implementation of the Lord Howe Island Rodent Eradication Project (REP).

10. Soon after the second respondent was joined to these proceedings at my direction, the first and second respondents submitted that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings as then constituted, at least in part. Clause 167 of the Code set out in the Schedule to the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994 (Cth) makes provision for review in this Tribunal.

11. Clause 167(1)(m) of the Code is the only provision which may give jurisdiction to the Tribunal. It provides that application may be made to the Tribunal for review of the following decisions of the first respondent:

    (m) a decision under Part 7 to issue a permit subject to particular conditions or for a particular period only;

12. Clause 114 (d) and (e) of the Code appear to draw a distinction between authorisations conferred by a permit and its conditions. Those provisions are as follows:

    The permit must:

    …

    
    

    (d) state the things authorised by the permit to be done or omitted to be done; and

    (e) state any conditions of the permit.

13. The permit observes the distinction suggested by clause 114(4)(d) and (e). The permit holder (the Lord Howe Island Board) and its employees, contractors and persons under its direction are given authority by clause 6 of the permit. Clause 6 authorises the dropping of the rat poison pellets by helicopter to the island, the hand broadcast of those pellets and the placement of bait stations containing the pellets. Detailed conditions then follow.

14. I am most grateful to the respondents for having agreed upon a series of amendments to the permit which are to be made so as to update its terms to take account of a number of changes made to the rodent eradication program since the permit was first issued. Those alterations will all be embodied in the permit except to the extent to which they are altered below. I will refer to the conditions of the permit as altered by agreement as the existing conditions. A copy of the permit altered as agreed by the respondents is attached to these reasons.

15. Lord Howe Island is defined by the permit to include some nearby islands, and the project extends to those surrounding islands, in case there may be undetected rats on those islands and to avoid the rats swimming there when Lord Howe Island becomes unhospitable to them, and later swimming back.

16. Clause 167(1)(m) does not mention that the Tribunal may review a decision authorising things to be done. Nor does it mention that the Tribunal may review the decision to issue a permit. Matters such as the safety criteria, the efficiency criteria and the trading criteria were all required to be matters about which the first respondent was required to be satisfied, and, conformably with my ruling on jurisdiction next referred to, no submissions have been addressed to whether or not the first respondent should have been satisfied about those matters, and I have not dealt with any of those matters.

17. An earlier version of the Statute was construed by Carr J in National Registration Authority v Barnett and others (1998) 83 FCR 222, an appeal from this Tribunal. His Honour’s reasoning at 229E-230C suggests that a similar view should be taken in these proceedings, and that an attack on the permit as a whole or upon the authorisations which clause 6 provides is not within jurisdiction and I so construed clause 167(1)(m). The relevant part of those reasons of Carr J is in the following terms:

    Then [counsel for the applicant before the the AAT] submitted that while s 167(1)(b) made the imposition of particular conditions "the touchstone" for a right of review, it did not on its face limit the ambit of the review. He submitted that the scope of the review was not indicated in the subparagraph and that therefore the matter could be resolved by looking for the intention of Parliament.

    I agree that s 167(1)(b) should not be read too literally. However, I think that Parliament's intention to exclude the actual decision to register a chemical product from review under the AAT Act has been made sufficiently clear. The following factors, namely:

    the mandatory command of s 14(1) to register an application once the NRA is satisfied of all the matters referred to in s 14(3);

    the express provision for review of a refusal of an application for registration; and

    the omission of any provision for review of a decision to register unconditionally;

    all provide the context and disclose Parliament's purpose in enacting s 167(1)(b). That purpose was that there was only to be review of the decision to impose particular conditions upon registration.

    Furthermore, in my opinion, Parliament intended that such review was to be limited to considering whether the particular conditions should or should not have been imposed that is, whether they are "appropriate" — being the adjective found in s 23. Subject to one proviso, I do not consider that the Tribunal has power to review the question whether other conditions should be imposed. In other words, I think that the word "particular" in s 167(1)(b)refers to the specific conditions which have been imposed. I have two reasons for reaching that conclusion. First, s 20 of the Agvet Code describes the relevant decision in terms of "subject to conditions". It does not use the word "particular".

    That suggests a narrowing of the focus, on review, to the particular conditions which were imposed. Secondly, a decision to register a chemical product unconditionally is not subject to review. Another possibly relevant contextual matter is the regime for deletion of conditions. In the present matter, if CSIRO applied to delete the Conditions, nothing in the Code would require the NRA to give public notice or an opportunity to third parties to make submissions. If the application were granted and the Conditions deleted, no notice of that would have to be given to any party other than CSIRO and there would be no right of review under s 167(1)...

18. The applicant was directed by me to indicate which particular numbered conditions it seeks to make the subject of this review and what variation, if any, it seeks to those conditions, and also the basis upon which it submits that such variation or variations should be made.

19. The applicant, while not resiling from the wider position it desired to embrace, accordingly filed a set of particular conditions which it desired to vary or delete.  In submissions in reply, filed after the conclusion of the evidence and after the view, the applicant has narrowed the nature of its attack on particular conditions.

20. In the upshot, the particular matters which the applicant finally pressed were:

    (a)A request that the bait station be defined as that comprised within exhibit 21, subject to a possible difficulty arising from evidence given by the board’s project manager Mr Walsh at T 438 lines 1-34;

    (b)A condition requiring helicopter broadcast to be subject to a buffer zone of 10 metres around all water courses, waterfalls and standing water, existing and visually identifiable from the air;

    (c)An exclusion zone for hand broadcast effected around water courses, waterfalls and standing water of 10 metres;

    (d)A buffer zone for aerial or hand broadcast of 50 metres surrounding all special leases;

    (e)Probably, the applicant still seeks a condition to the effect that bait stations should not be placed within ten metres of any water course, waterfalls or standing water;

    (f)The applicant seeks to exclude the adjacent islands from the permit;

    (g)For completeness I should mention that I caused to be notified to the parties certain other variations to conditions to the permit which I was contemplating and the applicant notified qualified support for these contemplated conditions. That is a matter to which I will return.

21. Until the filing of submissions in reply, the applicant had also sought an exclusion zone of 50 metres from the coastline for pellets to be dropped, in an effort to reduce the quantity of pellets which might fall into the ocean, and thus affect fish swimming around the island, which might in turn be eaten by birds, which might then die. The application concerning the coastline has not been pressed by the applicant following the view of the island.

22. Mr Vrisakis, who appeared for the applicants, told me that the applicant accepts that I am bound to hold that a challenge to matters authorised by the permit is not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and explained that the applicant may seek on appeal from this decision to endeavour to show that Carr J incorrectly construed the Code and that it is open to the applicants to make a wider case before the Tribunal.

23. The interests sought to be vindicated by the applicant are concerns about the risk to human health, ecological concerns about the birds, wildlife and fish in freshwater creeks, and the surrounding ocean waters, and concerns about the effect of the eradication upon tourism, a primary driver of the local economy, and the business of local fishermen and restaurants selling local fish. Neither respondent now maintains any suggestion that the applicant lacks standing.

24. The task of the Tribunal in this case and in most if not all cases before it is to arrive at the correct or preferable decision, standing in the shoes of the decision-maker, here the first respondent. Such a view ought in the usual case to be taken in the interests of good government, a touchstone which requires consideration of the interests of justice to individuals in the circumstances of the case, the public interest, the public purse in some cases, and a variety of other matters.

25. One circumstance which arises in this matter in my opinion, is that with such an invasive operation as that contemplated by the rodent eradication project (REP), of which the permit forms an integral part, close concern ought to be given to conditions which protect humans from injury to their health.  This is also so in the present case because of particular provisions of the Agvet Code. Section 112(2)(d) of the Code requires the Board to issue a permit if it is satisfied that the safety criteria, the efficiency criteria and the trading criteria are met. The safety criteria are defined in section 5A of the Code which requires consideration of whether a chemical product, in accordance with any instructions approved or to be approved by the APVMA (the first respondent) for the product is not or would not be likely to have an effect that is harmful to human beings, and is not or would not be likely to have an unintended effect that is harmful to animals, plants or things or to the environment. Another way of describing an unintended effect may be to describe the species which may be harmed as a non-target species. The APVMA has a power to specify such conditions as are “appropriate”, and conditions which would enable it to be satisfied that the product meets the safety criteria, or the efficiency criteria, or both, are at the heart of what is included within the meaning of the word “appropriate” in the context.

26. Having regard to submissions which I have received in this matter from the applicant in its reply submissions, I should mention one matter which has been put to me. The applicant urges a syllogism expressed as follows:

    (a)There are irreducible risks to human health, to non-target species and to the environment attendant on the REP;

    (b)It is difficult to predict a likelihood of success of the REP;

    (c)The REP should not be implemented without the maximum protective conditions, even though they may operate to reduce a likelihood of the success of the REP.

27. The suggested syllogism, at any rate if there is a general discretion conferred on the APVMA, has something to commend it if its premises are correct. To discuss the syllogism, it will be convenient to assume that a general discretion is conferred by the legislation. If its purpose is to invite the formulation of conditions which might guarantee the failure of the eradication project, such a course could perhaps be justified if a decision maker formed the view that the eradication project had a very large chance of failure. The expert evidence called by the second respondent has satisfied me that the project has at least reasonable prospects of success, if not high prospects of success. Moreover, the decision to go ahead has been made by the second respondent, a body appointed by statute to administer the island, after a vote was taken from the residents of the island in 2015. A large majority favoured attempts being made to control the rats and a narrow majority of 52% favoured a complete eradication. The present Board, and I am told by Mr Walsh, its predecessors have successively supported an eradication, and so far as can be seen, departments and Ministers in the current NSW government (who have a power to direct the Board) apparently support the project. One would be slow, in those circumstances to interfere at Commonwealth level by stipulating conditions which would cause the failure of the project.  About three quarters of the island is forested, and much of the birdlife lives there, and as will appear, one risk (fully appreciated by all parties) is a risk to some of that birdlife. To protect all those birds, while desirable in itself, might not be in the interests of good government if its consequence were the failure of the eradication as a whole. After all, the eradication itself was thought to be necessary in the interests of the ecology on Lord Howe Island, and those who voted in 2015 were I think, virtually unanimous in desiring to reduce the rat population.

1. It also seems to me that the inclusion of conditions necessary to avoid risks to human life would be proper in the interests of good government, if the matters to be taken into account by the first respondent were at large. As already observed, the provisions of section 112(2)(d) and section 5A of the of the Code in effect make such a consideration mandatory for the decision-maker including this Tribunal.

2. The process which the REP has undergone before it reached its present stage also should not be overlooked in my opinion. For example, it has been before many government bodies in New South Wales and at Commonwealth level, and the subject of expert advice and reviews, including by the Chief Scientist of New South Wales, supported by a distinguished group of experts. They considered some of the risks to which the applicant directs attention in the course of their deliberations.

3. There was also debate between the parties about whether the efficiency criteria precluded the formulation of conditions which would adversely affect the success of the proposed eradication. If I had thought that taking a step which would adversely affect the eradication was proper, I would have needed to consider those submissions. In the event I do not need to discuss those competing submissions.

4. I will next discuss the alterations to conditions proposed by the applicant, in the context of the concerns which the applicant desires to address rather than, in the first instance, concentrating on particular drafting matters which may arise. I will also mention some matters which have occurred to me arising from a consideration of the evidence called in the case

   Dangers to human health

5. The residents and tourists and their children will reside within the settlement area, except where camping on the forested part of the island occurs, which is best discussed in relation to the conditions proposing closure of the forested areas. Each residence and accommodation centre is supplied with water pumped from water tanks which depend on water which is collected from rain falling on the roofs of buildings. If drinking water in the houses and tourist accommodation is polluted with rat poison, parents and children would have cause for complaint, even if uninjured.

6. Secondly, children especially very young children may interfere with bait stations and seek to remove pellets and may eat them. Children, especially very young children, may pick up and eat pellets dropped by hand broadcast or helicopter which they come across on the ground of the island, including near the lagoon. Persons may be exposed to the dust of pellets spread by helicopter either being loaded near the airport, or during the helicopter work. Persons who drink from creeks when walking around the island may ingest pellets from the creeks.

7. I will consider first the water tanks. The helicopter drops will not for the most part be happening over the settlement area. That area will be covered by hand broadcasting to the ground or by bait stations. That, I assume, amongst other things, is so that pellets do not fall on roofs. (A proprietor may, if desired, take his or her own additional precautions by placing a tarpaulin over roof tops for a time). NSW EPA Pesticide Order AIR-1 (referred to in existing condition 14) prohibits the dropping of any product containing a pesticide within 150 metres of a dwelling, school, factory or any public place without the owner having obtained the prior written permission of any occupier of the dwelling, school, factory or public place. Even with consent, it is proposed that helicopter dropping will not occur within 30 metres of dwellings. In the current version of its operational plan, the Board intends that the 150 and 30 metre restrictions will in fact extend to 170 metres and 50 metres respectively to ensure compliance with the restrictions and to account for the possibility of pellets being carried within the 150 and 30 metre zones. Putting aside pellets being dropped or excreted by birds, those precautions should be sufficient without alteration of the conditions to 150 metres as suggested by the conditions originally proposed by the applicants so that pellets dropped by helicopter will not reach the water tanks. That originally proposed alteration to conditions is not now pressed, in the light of the evidence led in these proceedings by the respondents.

8. The only remaining concern which should be mentioned is that when the helicopter is being loaded, dust may emanate from the pellets in the loading area, and the roofs of the few homes near the airport may possibly receive (presumably small) quantities of dust because of winds. The only way to guard against such an exposure may be by the use of tarpaulins. The evidence shows that all loading will take place on an area designated for that purpose at the airport, which is not far from some homes.  Evidence has been led by the respondents that the effects of dust from pellets inhaled by humans or in water tanks may be minimal, even with substantial exposure, but it seems to me that certain precautions about this matter are nevertheless proper, as discussed below.

9. Studies have been done to estimate the actual adverse effect which may be caused by a few pellets in the water tanks, and that appears to be minimal, if it occurs.

10. I next consider the possibility of removal of pellets from bait stations or distributed by hand broadcast near dwellings or elsewhere in the settlement area by small children, especially very small children. The existing conditions provide for a minimum buffer zone from dwellings of 30 metres for the hand broadcasting of loose pellets, and otherwise provide for the use of bait stations outside or within houses.  Loose pellets will however still be able to be picked up by children, including toddlers, unless they are properly supervised.

11. Dr Simon from SA Health reviewed the work done by one of the earlier consultants to the Board, and commented that the pellets should be coloured in such a way as to be unattractive in colour to children and have something added to them to make them bitter, so that a child would spit them out.  Those things have not been done. Making the pellets bitter was thought to be likely to cause the eradication to fail, because the rats would not be likely to eat bitter pellets. In fact the product now authorised by the permit has a sweetener as part of its ingredients, which might actually make the pellets more attractive to small children, and cause them to seek out and eat more of the product. This is a matter of real concern in my opinion, when one considers the possibility that children walking within the settlement area might encounter loose pellets by the roads or footpaths, or 30 metres from dwellings or near the lagoon, distributed not within bait stations but by hand broadcast or in some places by helicopter. I appreciate that at the school and on arrival of a tourist at the island, the existing conditions will have some mitigating effect for this matter of concern. Information given to school children and presumably also to their parents, will go some distance, but pre-schoolers will not be involved under the existing conditions. Information handed out to tourists on arrival may cause parental control to be more vigilant.  Despite the fact that expert evidence suggests that a toddler is unlikely to be adversely affected by eating a small number of pellets, I do not think it is safe to act on such a view. If the facts were put before responsible parents of a toddler, I do not think that the exposure of a toddler even to one or two pellets would be consented to. The evidence suggests that reports have been made on the mainland on multiple occasions concerning rat poison ingested by children, including toddlers. A resident of the island, Mr Curtin, pointed out in his evidence the possibility of rat poison affecting a child in later life, even at low concentrations cannot be left out of consideration. This is a matter on which I called for further submissions from the parties, since in my opinion, all the local residents and all tourists on arrival should be given material about this risk, for the protection of any small child of their own, or of those who might visit them. Tourists and locals ought not to be allowed to camp in or enter forested areas during the days when baiting is undertaken or for so long as the product remains on the soil in such a way as to be picked up by toddlers or older children. I will return to the details of appropriate variations to conditions which take account of submissions made to me during the preparation of these reasons.

12. The applicant originally sought a change of language from that used in the existing permit in relation to the bait stations themselves. Having heard the respondent’s evidence, the applicant changed its attitude on the matter, and no longer pressed for a different kind of bait station to be utilised. Reference was made to Mr Walsh’s evidence at T 438, which, with respect, appears to me to be clear enough. The intention is to raise the pellets within bait stations with coffee cup lids to reduce the likelihood of pellets being washed out of the bait station in the event of rain water entering. The existing conditions now describe the bait station to be used so as to accord with exhibit 21 before me.

13. The bait stations are to be locked and securely pegged to the ground and also covered with wooden roofs. That will make access by small children much more difficult than otherwise might have been the case. A child cannot pick up such a bait station and shake it for example. Reaching pellets inside may be possible, and this is a particular risk which should be mentioned to parents, both tourist and locals.

14. The helicopters are intended not to fly over the settlement areas except in the case of emergency and the only potential risk arising from dust appears to be in the vicinity of the airport itself. The employees at and around the airport (by which I mean ground staff at the airport itself) should be warned of this possible risk, as should those with nearby houses. I received further submissions on this matter as well.

15. There are several ways in which the pellets may and no doubt will enter the ocean, where they may be eaten by fish. Fish which do eat it may be consumed by other fish, or by birds. There is also a fishing industry on the island, and tourists and others presently eat local fish. Existing condition 47 provides as follows:

    Residents and tourists must be advised to not consume the liver of any fish caught

    In the shore area of Lord Howe Island until the permit holder confirms, on the basis of residue monitoring, there are no detectable residues of brodifacoum present in streams.

16. That advice may be curious if it suggests that the rest of a fish may safely be consumed before there is confirmation that there are no detectable residues of brodifacoum in the fish population. If only for its own protection against possible litigation, unless the Board is sure that the rest of the fish is safe to eat, it may be desirable to enlarge the warning to make it extend to the eating of fish caught in the shore area of the island. This is a matter which I will leave to the respondents to consider.

    The creeks

17. The Board has, over time, changed its mind about the use of brodifacoum near all creeks on Lord Howe Island. Its statement of reasons indicates that it first intended “hand disposal of bait pellets around streams to minimise primary exposure to aquatic species” (T2 page 27). The exposure may be in respect of fish within streams or it may be to that exposure and also to fish in the oceans, in the case of streams which flow into the ocean, such as some of the streams which flow off Mount Gower after heavy rain.

18. Later, however, it accepted Risk Mitigation Plan version 3.1 which provided (T 33 page 1990) that hand baiting/ bait stations only would be conducted within 10m of creeks within the settlement area (described as 60% of the creeks on the island).

19. Existing condition 48 provides as follows:

    Prior to baiting commencement residents and tourists must be advised not to drink from streams until the permit holder confirms, on the basis of residue monitoring, there are no detectable residues of brodifacoum present in streams.

20. The applicant seeks a variation to conditions which would affect streams both in the settlement area and (so far as they are visible from the air) in the forested area, so as to establish a 10 metre exclusion zone. An exclusion zone would offer protection to freshwater fish and probably other wildlife and would help ensure that if any local or tourist drank from a stream they would not risk drinking water affected by brodifacoum. Dr Fisher explained in evidence that such an exclusion zone would leave the rats free to live in an area following the path of a creek and would probably cause the eradication to fail. The exclusion zone would create many hectares of the island which would be free of pellets as the evidence of Mr Walsh shows. The evidence of Dr Fisher and Mr Walsh satisfies me that the variation to condition proposed by the applicant should not be made because I do not consider that alterations to the condition should be made which will cause the eradication to fail.

21. In the settlement area, streams will be treated by bait stations, rather than aerial or hand broadcast, and I notified a proposed variation which would make provision as to the placement of the stations so as to reduce the risk of rain washing pellets into the streams at the settlement. As to the forested areas I intend to clarify the closure of the area to the public, so as to make it unlikely that walkers or campers will have access to streams in the forested areas or to loose pellets in that area.   Both these matters have been the subject of further submissions from the parties and I will return to the details of what variations to conditions are appropriate in my opinion.

22. There is no doubt that one of the tragic losses which will be likely as a result of the eradication project is a loss of some of the birdlife on the island, as a direct result of the planned helicopter drop of pellets, either as a result of the birds eating it in the forested area or eating fish which may be contaminated by the poison in the waters near the shoreline, or as a result of birds eating the dead rats and mice. That consequence cannot be avoided as a result of any decision I make, since conditions cannot be formulated which would save all of the birds endangered by the eradication especially in the forested areas, while adhering to the main object of the eradication program itself.

23. It should be mentioned that Taronga Zoo has been engaged by the Board to care in captivity for the majority of two species of bird thought to be at special risk during the eradication, namely wood hens and currawongs. They are to be released when the environment is thought to be again safe for them.

24. Other steps are to be taken by the Board to seek to ensure that birds which live on the cliffs are not affected by pellets dropped on the cliffs by helicopter, involving Board staff watching from boats and able to communicate with the helicopter pilot.

    The special lease areas

25. These areas are used for crops and dairy and other cattle. Existing conditions 9, 18, 26, and 33-42 relate to these areas. The Board proposes to cover bait stations with a wooden roof over each station, designed to prevent access by cattle to the bait stations. Some but not all of the cattle are to be removed from the island. Those conditions are in my opinion appropriate. A buffer zone of 50 metres around special lease areas would risk the effectiveness of the eradication program and is therefore undesirable.

    The adjacent islands

26. The prospect of rats swimming to adjacent islands to escape the inhospitable aspects of Lord Howe Island during the eradication, and then swimming back later makes the inclusion of adjacent islands reasonable to effectuate the eradication program. In their efforts to bring the permit and its condition up to date the respondents have agreed on a reduced scope of the definition of the islands, and jurisdictional issues would have affected the powers of the Tribunal to interfere on this subject matter. I decline to make orders sought by the applicant in this respect.

    The wet season

27. Lord Howe Island has significant rainfall in the winter period, with total falls of some 170 millimetres in June, for example. The eradication plan is to be carried out mostly in winter. That will make the proposed aerial drop more difficult for the Board, which has made detailed plans documented in its operational plan for the delay of aerial drops when heavy rainfall is predicted.

    Insurance

28. The Board has received assurances of insurance cover from the New South Wales Treasury Managed Fund to satisfy its proposed insurance requirements including requirements arising from the need to comply with marine permit conditions. The applicant has referred to possible gaps in the promised cover, which is a matter I will leave to the Board to manage if it becomes necessary. As I commented during argument, the assurances received by the Board suggest to me that the NSW government will be prepared to deal with any gaps in coverage if they become apparent. The NSW Crown Solicitor instructed Ms Davidson of counsel who appeared for the second respondent before me, and that government has provided financial assistance in other ways, as has the Commonwealth government.

    FURTHER VARIATIONS TO CONDITIONS ARISING FROM MATTERS DRAWN TO ATTENTION BY THE TRIBUNAL

29. Draft amendments to existing conditions which I was considering were the subject of submissions by all parties.  All parties are aware of the submissions made by other parties. It is sufficient to say that for reasons advanced in the submissions of Ms Davidson of counsel, for the second respondent, largely supported by the first respondent, I have accepted her submissions about alternative versions of the variations, with one exception.  In what is described as proposed variation 1(a) I have retained the words “may be seriously dangerous to their health” in order to stress the vigilance required by parents, and in the belief that the language of the label included in the permit need not be repeated in the notification.

30. The additional variations to conditions are to be as follows:

    (1)(a)

    “all residents and during 2019 all tourists on arrival are notified in writing by the Board for the protection of their own children, especially toddlers, and for the protection of any children who may visit them during 2019 that the ingestion of pellets whether broadcast in loose form or from bait stations may be seriously dangerous to their health and that small children should be supervised at all times to avoid that risk;”

    (1)(b)

    “the PPP will be closed to the public, whether locals or tourists, during days when helicopter baiting is effected and until the Board is reasonably satisfied that pellets are no longer present on the walking tracks in the PPP;”

    (1)(c)

    “employees working at the airport and persons occupying the dwellings within 200 metres from the helicopter loading site to be notified that dust may be produced at the time of loading the hoppers of the helicopter near the airport, which, if inhaled, may be injurious to health {also so that the owners of nearby residences may consider placing tarpaulins over their roofs during loading operations). The Board will supply a tarpaulin on request to any persons occupying dwellings within 200 metres of the helicopter loading zone;”

    (2)

    “BAIT STATIONS AROUND CREEKS WITHIN SETTLEMENT: Bait stations to be placed in such a way that bait pellets are not flushed into the water should a high-intensity rainfall occur) Cf T docs T 36 1269)

    
    
    

31. In the result the reviewable decision will be set aside to enable adoption of the variations either agreed between the respondents or as I have indicated in the previous paragraph of these reasons. That is an administrative step which need not delay compliance with the permit.

1. Mr Vrisakis drew attention to a possible departure by the Board from the basis on which the permit was obtained by the Board.  As the first respondent submitted those possible departures are not before the Tribunal because its review relates to the conditions nominated in the permit itself, rather than anything which may amount to a departure from it. The Board has suggested why any departure from the terms of its original application to the Board may be necessary or desirable.  The matters drawn to attention by the applicant have been drawn to the attention of the respondents and if some further step ought in the opinion of the first respondent to be taken as a result of the submissions which have been made, that is a matter which can be taken up between the parties. I do not think that what has been raised by the applicant should cause me to take any different view from that expressed in these reasons.

2. I wish to acknowledge with gratitude the able assistance of counsel and solicitors for all parties, assistance which has also enabled me to write these reasons with expedition.

I certify that the preceding 60 (sixty) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Deputy President B W Rayment OAM QC

...............................[sgd].......................................

Associate

Dated: 18 April 2019

Date(s) of hearing:	20 & 25 March 2019; 3, 9 & 10 April 2019
Date final submissions received:	18 April 2019
Solicitors for the Applicant:	Mr A Vrisakis, Mid-West Law Practice
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Mr J Davidson, Australian Government Solicitor
Counsel for the Second Respondent:	Ms J Davidson
Solicitors for the Second Respondent:	Ms H Sims, Crown Solicitors Office

PERMIT TO ALLOW MINOR USE AND SUPPLY OF AN AGVET CHEMICAL

FOR CONTROL OF THE BLACK RAT (Rattus rattus)

AND HOUSE MOUSE (Mus musculus) ON LORD HOWE ISLAND PERMIT NUMBER – PER85459

1.               This permit is issued to the Lord Howe Island Board (the permit holder) under section 112(2) of the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code (Agvet Code). It authorises certain things to be done in relation to PestOff Rodent Bait 20R (the product), an unregistered product containing 0.02 g/kg brodifacoum as the only active constituent. The product is proposed to be used in the implementation of a program known as the ‘Lord Howe Island Rodent Eradication Project’.

2.               For the purposes of this Permit,

2.1.   “Lord Howe Island” means:

•the island known as Lord Howe Island

•all adjacent islands which are within 2000 metres of Lord Howe Island measured from low-water mark on the coast of Lord Howe Island

•all other adjacent islands from which Lord Howe Island can be reached by crossing less than 2000 metres of water in any single journey, eg by way of ‘island hopping’.

2.2.   the “settlement area” is the area on Lord Howe Island other than the Permanent Park Preserve, uninhabited Crown Reserve and Special Leases.

DURATION OF THE PERMIT

3.               This Permit is in force from 24 August 2018 until the end of 31 August 2020.

MAKING OF CLAIMS IN RESPECT OF THE PRODUCT

4.               Any person may make a claim that the product may be used in accordance with this permit.

POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO SUPPLY AND SUPPLY

5.               Animal Control Products Ltd, of 408 Heads Road, Wanganui, New Zealand (the supplier) may:

5.1.   Possess and have in their custody the product for the purposes of supply; and

5.2.   supply the product,

to persons authorised to use the product by this permit.

USE OF THE PRODUCT

6.               Employees, contractors, or persons under the direction of, the permit holder, may:

6.1.   Possess and use the product;

6.2.   distribute and apply the product by hand in accordance with this permit, but only if they have been appropriately trained in the use of pesticides as required by the Pesticides Regulations 2017 (NSW);

6.3.   apply the product aerially, but only if they hold a current NSW EPA licence to apply pesticides by aircraft.

CONDITIONS OF USE

7.               The product must be used within 12 months of the date of manufacture.

Directions for Use

8.

Situation	Target Species	Product Application Method, Rate and Frequency
Lord Howe Island	Black Rat (Rattus rattus) and House mouse (Mus musculus)	Aerial (helicopter) broadcast 12 kg product/ha on initial broadcast, to be followed by a second application of 8 kg product/ha, approximately 7-21 days after, weather permitting, for a total 20 kg product/ha. Aerial broadcast is to be undertaken only in the locations specified at [9] below
Hand broadcast and outside bait stations around settlement area and baiting within dwellings:
Product to be dispersed by hand and/or placed into bait stations in accordance with [17]-[21] below. The first hand broadcast is to be undertaken at a rate of 12 kg product/ha, and the second hand broadcast at a rate of 8 kg product/ha. The second hand broadcast must not be undertaken for a minimum period of 7 days following the first distribution. Bait stations are to be placed on a 10m x 10m grid.
Within dwellings: product to be dispersed in accordance with [17] and [22]-[24] below

CRITICAL USE CONDITIONS

Aerial (helicopter) Broadcast

9.       Product may only be distributed aerially (via helicopter) in the following areas:

9.1.   the Permanent Park Preserve

9.2.   uninhabited Crown Reserve bordering the Permanent Park Reserve

9.3.   on Special Leases bordering the Permanent Park Reserve where livestock have been removed.

10.     No aerial broadcast over tidal beach areas of North Bay, Ned’s Beach, Old Settlement Beach, Blinky’s Beach and Lagoon Beach as far south as, and including, Kings Beach.

11.     Product to be distributed via an underslung hopper bucket, with mechanical spinner attached to distribute the product horizontally from the helicopter. A trickle chute may also be attached to the bucket to allow the product to be dropped in a narrow swath below the helicopter.

12.     Product distribution should only occur in fine weather and preferably where wind speed does not exceed 15 knots. Weather must be monitored in the lead-up to and during baiting and a record of conditions maintained.

13.     A maximum of two (2) applications to be undertaken, in accordance with the Directions for Use (above).

14.     User must comply with the NSW EPA Pesticide Order AIR-1. Even where an occupier grants permission to distribute within 150 m of their dwelling, the product may not be distributed via helicopter within 30 m of a building.

15.     The loading area must be established in the Special Event Zone established on 1 February 2019 under the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004.

16.     Overflight of dwellings, and departure from preferred flight paths (as shown on the 2 maps entitled Preferred flight/approach paths around the mainland settlement area and annexed to this Permit), is prohibited, except insofar as either is necessary to avoid a serious and imminent risk to air safety.

Hand Broadcast and Bait Stations in and around settlement area

Property Management Plans

17.     Where a Property Management Plan is in place, distribution of the product for that property is to be consistent with that plan. Where no Property Management Plan for a dwelling is in place only bait stations on a 10m x 10m grid will be used.

Outdoor areas of the settlement area

18.     Product may only be distributed by hand broadcast in the following areas:

18.1.   Uninhabited Crown Reserve (excluding public spaces such as the mown BBQ areas, Playground and Lagoon foreshore from Old Settlement Beach south to the Seawall)

18.2.   On Special Leases where livestock have been removed

18.3.   On other Leases with leaseholder permission.

19.     In areas where bait stations are to be used outside, the product may only be distributed via Globe Pest Solutions Rodent Bait Stations.

20.     Bait stations must be adequately covered when used in the open air to prevent access to bait by birds.

21.     Bait stations must be locked and secured to the ground when installed, unless prevented by impervious ground conditions. 

Within dwellings

22.     Product to be placed into either:

22.1.   Bell Laboratories Protecta Evo Mouse Bait Stations, or

22.2.   with the consent of adult occupants, into trays that are located in areas out of the reach of children and domestic pets (eg roof cavities).

23.     Where there is no agreed Property Management Plan, only Bell Laboratories Protect Evo Mouse Bait Stations will be used.

24.     Bait stations must be locked and secured in place unless they are located in areas out of the reach of children and domestic pets.

25.     Care should be taken to prevent domestic pets eating the product or carcasses of poisoned rats or mice.

Grazing Withholding Period

26.     DO NOT graze or cut in treated areas (except where the product has been applied by bait station) for stockfood for 4 months after treatment and until the permit holder confirms, on the basis of residue monitoring, there are no detectable residues of brodifacoum in treated pasture and soil.

Jurisdiction and Location

27.     NSW only; specifically Lord Howe Island (as defined at paragraph 2 of this permit).

ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS

28.     The permit holder shall take all possible steps to ensure that the following conditions are complied with:

Container

29.     The supplier must supply the product in a container that must:

29.1.   be impervious to, and incapable of chemical reaction with, its contents when under conditions of temperature and pressure that are likely to be encountered in normal service; and

29.2.   have sufficient strength and impermeability to prevent leakage of its contents during handling, transport and storage under normal handling conditions; and

29.3.   if it is intended to be opened more than once, be able to be securely and readily closed and reclosed; and

29.4.   have sufficient excess capacity to prevent it from breaking if its contents expand during handling, transport or storage; and

29.5.   enable all or any part of its contents to be removed or discharged in such a way that, with the exercise of no more than reasonable care, the contents cannot:

29.5.1.harm any person; or

29.5.2.have an unintended effect that is harmful to the environment.

30.     Attached to this container must be a label which is identical in content to the label in

Attachment 1.

31.     Persons who wish to prepare for use and/or use the product for the purposes specified in this permit must read, or have read to them, the details and conditions of this permit. Unless otherwise stated in this permit, the use of the product must be in accordance with instructions on its label as contained in Attachment 1.

32.     The permit holder shall take all possible steps to ensure that the following conditions are complied with:

Livestock and Poultry

33.     DO NOT allow livestock and poultry to come into contact with the product.

34.     The permit holder must ensure that:

35.     Livestock is penned in containment areas to prevent consumption of the product.

36.     A 5 m buffer zone to the areas treated by broadcast is established around containment areas for the herd. Bait stations only may be used in this buffer zone.

37.     Bait stations must be used around and within pens for the remaining herd containment area. These bait stations must be covered to prevent interference by livestock. Bait station covers secured at ground-level must be applied to any bait stations used around the herd.

38.     Bait stations should be placed in areas that avoid damage by livestock and monitored for leakage of the product.

39.     Livestock and poultry must not be reintroduced to treated areas (except where the product has been applied by bait station) for 4 months following treatment and until the permit holder confirms, on the basis of residue monitoring, there are no detectable residues of brodifacoum in treated pasture and soil.

40.     Residents and tourists must be advised not eat any meat or offal from any animals on LHI during the baiting operation.

41.     Milk from the dairy herd to be disposed of until bait is no longer present and laboratory testing confirms that there are no brodifacoum residues present.

Food Producing Crops

42.     Use around or within food producing crops must only be undertaken using tamper proof bait stations.

EXPOSURE AND RISK MANAGEMENT; RESIDENTS AND VISITORS/TOURISTS

43.     An education programme must be implemented before baiting commences to inform residents including children through school(s) of the operation, risks, avoiding contact with the product and the appropriate actions in the event that the product is accidentally consumed.

44.     A detailed information sheet outlining the hazards associated with brodifacoum must be prepared and distributed to residents before baiting commences and to tourists visiting and camping on the islands before and during the baiting period.

45.     LHI residents to be kept informed regularly of the progress of the operation involving the use of the product.

46.     The permit holder shall ensure that as far as is reasonably possible, all dwellings have an individual Property Management Plan that include baiting instructions, product placement locations, carcass disposal instructions and safety information for property residents and pets.

47.     Residents and tourists must be advised to not consume the liver of any fish caught in the shore area of Lord Howe Island until the permit holder confirms, on the basis of residue monitoring, there are no detectable residues of brodifacoum in the fish population.

48.     Prior to baiting commencement residents and tourists must be advised not to drink from streams until the permit holder confirms, on the basis of residue monitoring, there are no detectable residues of brodifacoum present in streams.

49.     An adequate supply of the antidote (Vitamin K1) will be held on the island for the duration of the operation in the event of incidental brodifacoum poisoning of people or domestic pets. Diagnostic and treatment procedures must be developed with the resident medical doctor and staff at LHI hospital.

50.     Permanent Park Preserve areas, where aerial baiting will be undertaken, to be closed to the public during the days baiting is undertaken.

51.     Hand-broadcasting of the product along the lagoon shoreline will be undertaken (where possible), with a buffer zone immediately below the high tide line (i.e) the tidal beach area (between the low and high tide line) is not to be baited.

RISK MITIGATION PLAN

52.     All aspects of the Lord Howe Island Rodent Eradication Project Risk Mitigation Plan Version 4.0 must be followed.

53.     Within 30 days after the commencement of the action, the APMVA must be informed of the actual date of commencement of the baiting operation.

54.     All conditions attached to licence issued by the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage must be satisfied (C0002763).

55.     All conditions attached to the approval by the Australian Department of the Environment and Energy must be satisfied (EPBC 2016/7703).

NOTIFICATION, RECORD KEEPING AND OTHER CONDITIONS

56.     The permit holder must ensure that records are made and maintained for all use undertaken with the product. The details of the record must at a minimum meet the same requirements as required by the NSW Pesticides Act 1999 and the NSW Pesticides Regulation 2009.

57.     The records must be progressively maintained whilst the permit is in force and for a minimum period of two years from the date of expiry of this permit and must be made available to the APVMA upon request.

58.     Upon a request being made, the records are to be provided: (i) immediately if the request is verbally from an APVMA Inspector who has attended the premises, and (ii) in the time specified in the written correspondence containing the request.

ADDITIONAL SAFETY DIRECTIONS AND FIRST AID INSTRUCTIONS

59.     These Safety Directions are to be provided to all persons using, handling or storing the product and are in addition to the Precautions specified on the product label (Attachment

1) and must be followed during the handling, loading and distribution of the product:

59.1If poisoning occurs, contact a doctor, the hospital or Poisons Information Centre, phone 131126.

59.2Vitamin K1 is an antidote to brodifacoum poisoning.

59.3Poisonous if swallowed.

59.4Repeated minor exposure may have a cumulative poisoning effect.

59.5Avoid inhaling dust.

59.6Avoid skin contact.

59.7When decanting and loading for aerial application wear cotton overalls buttoned to neck and wrist (or equivalent clothing), goggles, rubber gloves and a disposable dust face mask, covering mouth and nose.

59.8If applying product by broadcast, wear cotton overalls over normal clothing, buttoned to neck and wrist and rubber gloves.

59.9When decanting and loading bait trays or bait stations wear rubber gloves.

59.10After each baiting, wash thoroughly with soap and water.

59.11Wash hands after use.

59.12When handling carcasses or product waste, wear latex or rubber gloves.

59.13DO NOT eat, drink or smoke when using the product, handling open containers, or handling rat and mouse carcasses.

59.14Wash protective clothing, including goggles and gloves after use.

59.15Remove the outer layer of clothing and wash hands and exposed skin thoroughly before meals and after any contact with the product or carcasses.

59.16Store bait in original container, tightly closed and away from feed or foodstuffs.

59.17KEEP OUT of reach of children, pets and livestock.

59.18Additional safety information for Pestoff Rodent Bait 20R is listed on the safety data sheet, which is available from or Re-handling Statement

60.     Do not re-handle the product, product waste or rodent carcasses, unless wearing gloves. Where possible, rodent carcasses should be collected and sealed in plastic bags at the end of each baiting program.

Disposal - Carcasses

61.     Collect poisoned animal carcasses where practicable for burning or burying at least 600 mm below ground. Carcass disposal must comply with NSW EPA requirements.

ATTACHMENT 1

This product is not registered. Approved for use under APVMA Permit No. 85459

PRECAUTIONS

Harmful substance. Repeated oral exposure may cause toxin to accumulate in internal organs and may affect the clotting ability of the blood. Wear gloves when handling open containers or baits. Do not breathe dust.
Toxic to terrestrial vertebrates. Take measures to prevent domestic animals and pets being exposed to the toxin either through eating baits or through eating the carcasses of poisoned animals.

Storage: Store in original container, tightly closed and away from feed or foodstuffs. Keep out of reach of children and domestic animals. Do not store in direct or diffused sunlight. Avoid cyclic heating and cooling which may cause condensation to form on the inner bag wall and cause accelerated bait degradation.

Handling: Wear overalls and rubber or PVC gloves when laying pellets. When handling this product in open bags particularly around aircraft, avoid inhalation of bait dust by wearing an appropriate dust mask. Avoid contact by mouth and do not smoke, drink or eat while using. Wash hands and exposed skin areas before meals, smoking and after any contact. Prevent access to baits by children, pets and domestic animals. Avoid pollution of any water supply with chemical or used container. Any dead rodents found should be buried.

Residue Warning: Brodifacoum, the active ingredient is a potent second generation anticoagulant poison which can accumulate particularly in the liver, kidneys and fat of poisoned animals. Do not feed rodents killed with brodifacoum baits to dogs or cats.

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

First Aid: Brodifacoum is an anti-coagulant toxin. In the event of this product being swallowed, seek medical advice. Do not induce vomiting. The symptoms of anti- coagulant poisoning may take several days to appear. Symptoms may include pale gums, passing of blood in urine or faeces, and the appearance of bruising. Always seek medical advice in the event of suspected human poisoning.

Treatment of domestic animals accidentally poisoned: Vitamin K₁ is an effective antidote against accidental poisoning of domestic animals by Pestoff Rodent Bait 20R. Veterinarians are familiar with the information on Vitamin K₁ therapy and should be consulted.

Spillage: In the event of a spill, isolate the spill area and take all practicable steps to manage any harmful effects of a spillage including preventing baits from entering streams or waterways. Scoop spilled baits into secure containers. Recover any undamaged bait for later use by placing in appropriately labelled containers and dispose of spoiled bait as directed below. Use a broom to collect fine material and wash down the spill area with copious water only after all spilled bait has been removed.

Disposal: Product which is surplus or spoiled should be disposed of by burying with other organic material on the active tip face of an appropriately managed landfill or buried within the biologically active layer of soil elsewhere within a secure area. Ensure that a good covering of earth is applied over the bait immediately to prevent access by scavenging birds. Alternatively, burn unwanted bait material in a suitably constructed and appropriately located incinerator and bury any residues as above. Treating the baits through a sewage oxidation facility or other chemical treatment facility is also an acceptable means of disposing of unwanted bait material. Dispose of empty containers by burning if conditions, especially wind direction permit, otherwise bury in an approved landfill. Do not use empty container for any other purpose.

DIRECTIONS FOR USE

To achieve eradication, it is very important to apply baits across the entire treatment area and to manage successfully all possible sources of re-invasion. Apply baits in bait stations, by hand broadcasting or by aerial sowing. Two bait applications, each of approximately 8 kg - 15 kg per hectare, will usually be sufficient to achieve eradication but higher application rates and/or further applications may be required depending on the species and density of animals targeted, the presence of non-target bait consumers and the nature of the terrain. The second bait application is typically 10 or more days after the first, but may be sooner if a period of prolonged bait availability is sought or where weather or other factors limit the baiting period. Pre-feeding is not required when using Pestoff Rodent Bait 20R.

LEGAL OBLIGATIONS

Sale: This product may be supplied only to authorised persons operating in accordance with the relevant permits.
Limitations on Use: Aerial and Hand Broadcast Application or use in bait stations of Pestoff Rodent Bait 20R for the Intended Eradication of Rodents from Specified Areas of Australia has been approved for this product. Persons authorised for the use of this product must do so in accordance with the relevant permits. Any person who, when using this product, knowingly fails to follow the above conditions, commits an offence and may be liable to prosecution.
Signage: If baits are applied in areas to which the public has right of access, it is a legal requirement that signs must be posted to notify the public that this product has been applied in the area. Signs must state that brodifacoum has been used, that feral animals may contain residues and that they should not be taken for food. Signs must remain for a period of 12 months after the last application of bait. This product must only be used as specified in the label.

GENERAL INFORMATION

Shelf life: The shelf life of this product may vary according to the suitability of storage conditions. As a guide, it is recommended that the product be used within 3 months of date of manufacture as studies have shown that the palatability of bait may progressively decline after that time. Any product held after the expiry date shown on the bag should be disposed of according to label directions.

Livestock: It is important to prevent access to baits by domestic livestock and pets. Stock must be kept off the treatment area until baits have been washed out by rain, removed or destroyed. Dogs and cats are at risk from scavenging poisoned animal carcasses and pet owners in the immediate vicinity should be notified of this risk. Collect poisoned animal carcasses where practicable for burning or burying at least 600 mm below ground, otherwise limit access to the treatment area until poisoned animal carcasses are unlikely to be eaten or to contain residues.

Conditions of sale: As no control can be exercised over the methods or conditions under which this product is used, no responsibility or claim, other than those required by statute, will be accepted for any damage or injury whatsoever arising from the storage, handling, application, use or disposal of this product.

Transport information: This product does not trigger a Dangerous Goods Classification and may be transported by road, rail, sea or air without the need for placarding or Dangerous Goods documentation.