Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

On 22 May 2014 the independent statutory authority responsible for regulating agricultural pesticides and chemicals, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, the APVMA, announced the cancellation of all horticultural uses for the chemical fenthion. The ongoing review process undertaken by the   APVMA and its subsequent decision to cancel the use of fenthion was in turn the subject of a review by the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, which handed down its recommendations on 31 July 2014.

For the stonefruit and grape growers in my electorate of Pearce, the APVMA's decision has been another major setback in their ongoing struggle with an issue that has the potential to present as a significant impediment to their industry—an industry that, within my electorate alone, produces more than $40 million a year worth of stonefruit, apples and pears. In broader terms, in the 2012-13 financial year, Australia's fruit and vegetable exports accounted for $640 million. It was estimated that over 75 per cent of these exports were potentially susceptible to fruit fly. The Senate committee heard evidence that, nationally, the problem of fruit fly cost more than an estimated $150 million per year in eradication procedures, in destroyed fruit, in field control and in quarantine treatments so as to access interstate and overseas markets.

Growers have relied upon fenthion since the 1960s as protection from the effects of the fruit fly. In my electorate, it is the Mediterranean fruit fly which presents a particular problem. Without adequate treatment mechanisms, medfly causes extreme and extensive damage to crops. However, due to the decision of the APVMA, the use of fenthion will soon be prohibited, leaving growers without comparable or effective treatment mechanisms.

Whilst it is accepted that the APVMA is an independent statutory authority, that does not mean the authority is immune from error. The potential prohibition of fenthion, on the current data and evidence available, is questionable. For nearly 60 years fenthion has been used to treat stonefruit and grapes without a single reported health issue being recorded. The committee noted that the only human-derived source of evidence supporting the APVMA's conclusion that fenthion may have the potential to cause adverse health effects was a 35-year-old unpublished paper which concluded that there were few, if any, verifiable effects attributable to the chemical that were evident. If this is the science relied upon, it suggests the potential danger presented by fenthion is not immediate.

Critically, the immediate removal of fenthion will potentially force producers in the direction of using even more toxic products. Some of these chemicals have been linked to neurotoxic effects and others have been banned in the European Union due to their unacceptably high risk upon the environment. Whilst it is clear that alternatives to fenthion must be identified and developed, this will of course take time. Assistance is required not just from peak industry bodies but from all levels of government. The growers in my electorate are willing to work with authorities to develop alternative treatment programs, but they require time.

The Senate committee recommended at paragraph 4.94 that the maximum 12-month transition period be allowed under the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994. The view of growers in my electorate, which I firmly share, is that that is significantly insufficient and that a longer period of transition is required—perhaps as high as three years.

See this speech in context