Anne Webster (Mallee, National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Regional Health) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) is reviewing the approved usage levels of paraquat and diquat in Australia;

(b) the Australian Broadcasting Corporation ran a story titled 'After the Harvest' on 31 August 2024 and 1 September 2024 seeking to link paraquat use to the incidence of Parkinson's Disease, claiming that children were being 'coated head to toe in chemicals' and spraying was occurring without gloves or a mask;

(c) the APVMA responded saying such practices were 'historical' and 'do not meet current requirements for the use of agvet chemical products'; and

(d) three OECD-nation regulators in the past four years have found no causal link between paraquat and Parkinson's Disease; and

(2) calls upon the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to:

(a) listen to the voices of farmers who responsibly rely upon paraquat and diquat to control weeds, avoid heavy-tillage farming and retain soil and moisture in their cropping lands;

(b) listen to the science; and

(c) refrain from rewarding sensationalist journalism from the national broadcaster.

I am proud to move this motion standing up for our farmers and the critically important work that they do to provide food security to our nation and to feed the growing global population, now exceeding eight billion people.

Paragraph 4 of this motion points to current comparable regulatory practice and evidence that there is no link between paraquat, diquat and other herbicides and the risk of illnesses such as Parkinson's disease. Even so, nobody should interpret this motion as rejecting what the science may show or prove in the future. I fully empathise with those that suffer neurological conditions. They are debilitating and horrific, and in this motion I do not wish to diminish their suffering or the cause of their illness. Today's motion is about the practice and science today, not what might once have been.

Paragraph 2 of this motion takes issue with the sensationalism of the ABC portrayed on Landline, a program that farmers have trusted for generations. Their suggestion is that historical practices are still occurring today. Children are not being exposed to herbicides in the way the ABC's recent Landline program suggested, and farmers now apply herbicides in protected environments that are safe, with virtually no exposure to the chemicals. The fact that the APVMA took the rare step of responding to Landline's misrepresentations of the reality of this topic demonstrates the severity of that misinformation spread by the public broadcaster. I commend the APVMA for correcting the record.

I also want to make clear that the coalition supports the independence and evidence based approach to policy at the APVMA. This motion, in paragraph (2)(b), makes that abundantly clear: trust the science. Don't trust sensationalist and frankly disappointing reporting or vested interests pushing for an outcome. We trust the APVMA to come to the right conclusion, but the misinformation being spread about modern paraquat and diquat practices must be countered in this place, lest the decision-makers labour under the misapprehension that nobody here takes issue with claims that grow close to slandering our farmers.

Naturally, the Nationals are quick to their feet when our farmers are potentially slandered. My Nationals colleagues who are speaking on this motion and I represent electorates with farmers who rely on paraquat and diquat to operate in both an environmentally friendly and financially viable way. That's the irony of what has been proposed by would-be environmentalists in this debate. By seeking to reduce herbicide usage, activists risk farmers being forced to one or two unpalatable outcomes. Firstly, they may have to revert to heavy tillage farming. Secondly, in the alternative, they may have to cease farming, and then who will maintain the land and prevent the prevalence of weeds or other pests on those properties? One might also ask: who is going to feed the nation?

The current usage rate of paraquat is around 1,200 to 1,800 millilitres to the hectare. But, as my constituent Ron Hards from Werrimull told me, if the rate is reduced to, say, 400 millilitres to the hectare: 'You may as well pee in the corner of the paddock. It does nothing.' Worse still, as Ron points out, at low dosages, policymakers will effectively be promoting weed resistance to herbicides. Paraquat and diquat have been used safely for 30 years and are presently used to knock down weeds, weakened first with the application of Roundup herbicide.

Without paraquat and diquat, my hometown of Mildura will once again be blanketed in dust storms. Even those Labor and Teal MPs might want to explain to their voters why they would want dust storms over Sydney again. That's what will happen if farmers are forced to stay viable by returning to heavy tillage farming if paraquat and diquat are removed.

I commend Grain Producers Australia and Mallee constituents like Andrew Weidemann and Ron Hards, and a great many more who have spoken with me privately, who've been gathering the evidence, gravely concerned about the ABC's misrepresentation of the reality of grain producing farming and deeply concerned that activists will yet again have another win which will mean severe loss for Australian farmers. Make no mistake: an unworkable APVMA ruling will sit at Labor's feet.

See this speech in context