Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

That’s right, fluoride. Thalidomide is one we do not use anymore; I think that stopped babies from having limbs. Excuse me for that. People make a judgement to buy that water because they do not like scheme water, but we do not ban scheme water because it might affect somebody’s health—we think it is a product that, on a cost-benefit analysis, has adequate health preventative measures. I repeat my point: there is not much in the world today that does not put at risk somebody’s health, but that has to be tested against the benefits a product brings to an industry—for example, to the very farmers who use this chemical, which represents a low-cost alternative in addressing the problems of lice and blowfly strike in sheep.

In the time left available, I also want to make a point about another chemical, a herbicide called 2,4-D ester. It has been around for as long as I can remember as a knockdown herbicide, and, because of the longevity of the product, it is very low cost. It is typically used by farmers out of season. By this I mean that if there are unseasonable rains—and we can certainly do with a few more of them—and various weeds, melons and other things come into the paddock, which will disadvantage the seeding of the crop at a later date, they go in with 2,4-D ester and use it as a knockdown. It kills them. That is a very cheap means of addressing this problem. I also point out that the bulk of its use in my electorate of O’Connor is in broadacre farming and out of season. So, typically, when it is used—in contrast to a wide variety of other herbicides—there ain’t a crop growing in the next paddock. But where that circumstance arises farmers are very conscious of their own and their neighbours’ crops and they have adequate facilities in place—drift control and things over their sprays—which have ensured that only on very isolated occasions has this particular herbicide interfered with someone else’s productive cash-flow crop.

It has been pointed out that it can have a bad effect on grapes and other horticultural products. In the context of Western Australia the horticulture representatives of the various horticulturist bodies—vegetable growers et cetera—have said, ‘We’ve had no trouble with other persons’ use of 2,4-D ester; we think they should be entitled to continue to use it.’ But this faceless group, whom we are going to further empower, has come to the decision that there is a risk of this particular chemical interfering with other people’s crops. I might add that, if you allow that to happen, the affected party has a habit of rushing off and seeking compensation, either from your insurer, your contractor’s insurer or from yourself—and, if necessary, through the courts. But I can see that as no reason to ban—or control, as I think they have done in the case of 2,4-D ester—people from using it. I have seen no case that this chemical has been a serious problem. There may have been cases where it was a minor problem. There may be cases, in areas of high density horticulture—wine production and so on—where the local authority could ban it, but for this centralised body to be banning this particular chemical beggars belief.

I have objected to both bans. This will be an ongoing issue that is aggravated, I believe, by this change of administrative arrangements for the APVMA. I plead with the government to take steps to bring a component of reality back into this process. The minister, when he gets representations from his colleagues who have had representations from their own electorates—and in this case, as I have just mentioned, the representations have been significant—should determine that we should have a right, over and above the determination of this committee, to have a second look. Maybe we should look at the cost-benefits study relative to this thing. If you can find one person who has died of diazinon poison, other than from drinking it, what is that as compared to the huge benefits for the industry and the fact that most users do so without personal harm?

I think those are two great examples of the weakness of these so-called independent committees. They need an oversight. If I had spare time I might have put similar arguments about wheat marketing. I have missed out on the opportunity. No doubt the House is pleased to know that, but the fact of life is that my comments in this regard are well meant. (Time expired)

See this speech in context