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

I was given advice on this matter, and the only way I could communicate it was by making those comments. Unlike the previous speaker, the member for Capricornia, I have matters of concern that I will be raising during the 20 minutes that the parliament makes available to me. This legislation might be considered routine. It has been announced as party policy that committees and bodies of that nature will be restructured under the Uhrig principles. Those principles are best described as a process which further empowers the executive over the board. In broad terms, this is mainly how the corporate sector operates: the board is considered the policymaker and the executive undertakes the administration of that policy.

To a degree, I think there is a bit of a bottoms-up circumstance confronting the APVMA with the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Administration) Amendment Bill 2007. The bill deals with the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Administration) Act. The APVMA is the acronym for the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority. As I said, the legislation is about a process which involves increasing the power of the executive and the more advisory capacity of the board. Having given the example of the corporate sector, I think the issue here is the extent to which this new board sets policy. My major concern relates not so much to that process—I do not oppose it; I support it—but to a fundamental vacancy or a flaw by default in the legislation, which is presented as a positive. The parliamentary secretary said in her second reading speech that the role of the APVMA is to license the use of veterinary and agricultural chemicals, particularly by people. I am very concerned that we are moving further towards empowering a bureaucracy while removing the influence of the politicians and minister involved. That is what the bill before us does.

The remark is often made, ‘We have to keep the politicians out of this.’ In my terminology, that means, ‘Keep the people out of this.’ When there is talk about keeping farmers, veterinarians and others out of a process involving agricultural veterinary chemicals, it concerns me that some faceless people will instead be deciding on these issues. The evidence I want to bring to the attention of the House today is about how dangerous this can be. I will relate two recent decisions by the APVMA concerning two chemicals that are very important within the agricultural sector. They have been around for decades, but suddenly it has been discovered that they have some harmful effects. One of chemicals is called diazinon. To quote one of the newspapers from the other day: ‘Diazinon is dead.’ Diazinon is used to treat tick infestations, particularly in sheep, and to protect sheep from blowflies—blowfly strike.

The other solution to blowfly strike is mulesing. At the moment, an international debate is being held on mulesing. Representatives of the Australian wool industry, I think unadvisedly, have made promises to the activists. The industry is in a legal conflict with the activists as to their right to bully retailers into refusing to sell wool products. The activists claim that mulesing is a cruel measure, even though it protects wool-bearing sheep from blowfly strike in Australia. My view, after having had long experience both as a member of parliament for an agricultural industry electorate and as an owner of farming and sheep station properties over the years, is that the removal of some skin on a lamb to protect it from the horrors of maggot infestation is akin to a child skinning their shin—as most do at some time during their younger years. They fall over on a gravelly or rough cement area. The wound looks quite frightening at the time. There is blood and all sorts of mess, but within hours the child feels no serious pain. Typically, the wound is treated with some iodine or something of that nature.

I have always protested that, while mulesing is painful in the short term, it gives protection to the animal over their life. The alternative is a regular spray or drenching with a product like diazinon, which has been used for many years. An alternative to that product is to put a chemical on the animal’s back after it has been sheared or when you can get close enough to its skin. The chemical it is absorbed by the skin and it goes into the bloodstream. Its repellent effect is by literally poisoning flies and others insects that try and attack the animal. Poison has to be used carefully, because it could have a consequent effect on people when the animal is slaughtered. But this chemical is well managed.

Diazinon was put into the old-fashioned sheep dip. Sheep were driven, one by one, into a concrete trench in the ground and they swam from one end to the other. Halfway up the trench, someone stood with some implement to push their head under the water which contained diazinon. The sheep exited at the other end, ran off into the paddock and dried out, and their wool was impregnated with this chemical. Thus, when the flies landed on them, the chemical killed them. They did not get the chance to lay their eggs and to impregnate the live animal with maggots. That process is one of the only alternatives.

From time to time I pick up agricultural magazines and see a sale of aged ewes or wethers advertised in some part of my electorate. Although they are getting to the end of their productive life, they have been on the property for some years. Probably once a year they have been dunked in a diazinon mix, and they are still around. I am not sure about the differences between the metabolisms of a sheep and a human being in respect of diazinon, but humans are not in the habit of showering themselves with this product. The other approach, which is more commonly used today, is to put the sheep into a facility that has sprays, both up and down. Instead of dunking them and putting them through the rather frightening process of swimming down this channel, you spray them.

There are warnings on the bottle that this may have some deleterious effect on people’s health and that they should properly attire themselves for the work. That some of them do not bother is a matter of admission, but the responsibility of the manufacturer is to warn them of this fact. Diazinon has been used for decades. In my electorate, I am not aware of any significant human sickness, death or disability arising from its use, and my observation is that the sheep seem to handle it with no effect. However, all of a sudden—after years—somebody who was obviously a bit short of something to do has conducted some sort of survey on the effects of this chemical on humanity. I would not be surprised if there was one chance in 100 or one chance in 1,000 of some health effect from this chemical.

I hold a similar view on crosswalks. Crosswalks are there to give confidence to pedestrians that they can cross without getting run over by motor cars. Occasionally—unfortunately—they do, but we do not have public servants getting up the next day and saying, ‘It’s time we removed all crosswalks because occasionally people get killed on them.’ There has to be a balance with these things. The motor car is the classic example. We try to make motor cars safer. We try to encourage people to have a better attitude to their driving practices and to make themselves and other people safe, but we do not ban motor cars.

This group of faceless men, on the advice of somebody, has all of a sudden decided that diazinon, a product of great usefulness and assistance and with an increasing demand because of other circumstances, should be banned. The parliamentary secretary has listened to us wisely and cooperatively in our AFFA backbench committee, and we thank her for her interest. She, personally, has an excellent farming background and I think she would like to assist us but, as the act provides and as it is to be amended, nobody asks her. Nobody has asked her senior minister. We chortle about the fact that in the second reading speech the minister said, ‘This body is totally independent from us. We get elected; they don’t.’

I am pleased to say that the AFFA backbench committee asked the minister again today—we have previously asked the parliamentary secretary and, as I said, we thank her for her interest—that something be added to this bill, probably in the Senate, to leave residual control with the minister of the day. I would ask the opposition member present to think seriously about that matter. I do not think we should abdicate our responsibility as members of parliament in these circumstances. Surely there should at least be a provision whereby the minister can call for a cost-benefit analysis. I do not know what is safe in this world. People pay large amounts of money for water in a bottle to make sure that they do not get any—thalidomide, is it?—of the stuff we put in it to save children’s teeth.

See this speech in context