Matt Burnell (Spence, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Governments have a duty to protect farmers and the agricultural sector, and not just economically, given the value Australian farming has to local communities and the wider nation—I will touch on that later—but physically. Like all Australian workers, farmers on the land must work in the safest possible conditions. This is something a Labor government will never shy away from, and it should be an objective for those opposite who are in large part representatives of more regional and agriculture-centric communities.

I would expect members of the opposition to agree with me on this subject. I would also expect those members, such as the member for Mallee, to acknowledge that, when new evidence is found regarding the impact of certain chemicals, it is taken into consideration constructively, then scrutinised and finally actioned accordingly by regulatory bodies. In the motion, the member for Mallee at least touches on the important role these authorities play for our nation. In this case, it's the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, and rightly so. This body performs critical work to ensure the chemicals used by our farmers—those employed each and every day to help ensure food continues to end up on Australian tables—are safe to use. Whether that's by mandating certain practices with chemical substances or by introducing restrictions on a product's use, these efforts go a long way toward limiting potential health risks within Australian culture. The significance of this role can't be understating. It's important that public faith, both inside the agricultural sector and beyond, is maintained by the APVMA so that it can continue to make these important decisions.

Unfortunately, that faith was undermined under the watch of those opposite—so much so that it led to a strategic review of the body. That review recommended significant changes. Once again, it's up to this Labor government to clean up nearly a decade of neglect under the previous Liberal administration. Under that old government, a report to review the regulatory framework behind agvet chemicals, which include paraquat and diquat, was first authorised. What was the outcome of this review, I hear you ask? Well, it was nothing, because those opposite chose to sit on that report for over a year without taking any action on its recommendations. The opposition must appreciate the work the Labor government are doing, having chosen during its administration to leave so much work for our government to tidy up later. It's flattering if not a little disappointing, but I digress.

It's imperative that confidence be restored in the APVMA, and we're getting on with that task, having taken important steps towards its reform. Likewise, the APVMA is getting on with its role, too, having recently proposed additional regulatory action on the use of paraquat and diquat. That regulation was open for public consultation and submissions until last week. Submitted as part of that consultation are the views of neurologists and other doctors who believe there is a link between these chemicals and the development of Parkinson's disease. Regardless of our thoughts on them as legislators, taking in views such as these represents a core process of the APVMA, especially as they're an independent agency.

The body is also, as the member for Mallee's motion seeks to promote, listening to the voices of farmers across the country, who are having their say on that submission process as well. This is happening as I speak, and it's something I'd expect the member for Mallee to appreciate, given her motion. But, unfortunately, the honourable member doesn't see it that way, having come to her own scientific conclusions, refusing to let the APVMA do the work required and dismissing other points of view as sensationalist. The member is choosing to weaponise media reports that she disagrees with. It's a shame, because using a regulatory process solely to attack the ABC does nothing to help farmers waiting for the final decision on the proposed changes. It certainly doesn't display a willingness to listen to science, either. Processes like these allow for scrutiny, research and analysis from both public and academic levels, enabling us to make informed decisions to protect Aussies' wellbeing. With a motion like this, the member for Mallee goes around that process and applies her own ideas, away from that scrutiny. This is worrying behaviour. Worse still, it has been embraced wholeheartedly by the opposition. I would urge the member for Mallee and her colleagues, who continue to apply forms of antiscience like this, to consider the impact of their actions and change course.

See this speech in context