Anne Webster (Mallee, National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Regional Health) Share this | Link to 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.

Terry Young (Longman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is there a seconder for the motion?

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Shadow Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the member for Mallee's motion and I reserve my right to speak.

Brian Mitchell (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the member for Tasmania's largest rural electorate, I take a keen interest in the matters the member for Mallee has brought forward today. Before any agricultural and veterinary products can be sold or used in Australia, they are evaluated and registered by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, APVMA, an independent regulatory body responsible for ensuring the safety, efficacy and environmental impact of such products—including paraquat and diquat.

Paraquat and diquat are widely used herbicides in grain and horticulture farming. The APVMA recently reviewed paraquat and has proposed removing support for certain high-rate uses, due to its potential as an environmental risk and insufficient mitigation of acute poisoning risks. The APVMA's proposed decision released on 30 July sets out which uses of paraquat can remain acceptable—specifically, at lower rates and early in the season. These proposed restrictions align with best practice to protect our environment and, importantly, our users, who, of course, are our farmers.

The APVMA examined a wide range of epidemiological studies, including concerns about paraquat's potential link to Parkinson's disease, which of course was the subject of the ABC report that the member for Mallee refers to. After thorough evaluation, both the APVMA and the United States Environmental Protection Agency have found no robust association between paraquat exposure and Parkinson's, reassuring the public that these findings are grounded in scientific evidence.

It's important to note that the APVMA operates as an independent body. Its decisions are based on evidence. Government officials and elected representatives cannot and should not seek to influence such regulatory decisions, which are founded in science.

While we're speaking about the APVMA, I'm going to take the opportunity to highlight some of the systemic challenges that it has faced as an organisation in recent years. A 2023 review found that some chemical reviews by the organisation had taken decades to resolve. The roots of those delays can be traced back to the decisions of the former Liberal-National government. Of course there was also the forced move of APVMA in 2016 to the city of Armidale in the electorate of New England, the seat of the then agriculture minister, Barnaby Joyce. This move significantly disrupted APVMA's operations and led to severe staffing upheaval, including a shortage of technical experts, and a decline in regulatory efficiency and quality, as highlighted in both the 2019 Independent Review of the Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Regulatory System in Australia and the 2023 review. Despite these findings, the former government failed to act. It sat on critical reports, allowing inefficiencies and staffing shortages to persist. The combination of the upheaval of the forced relocation and the delayed response to the impacts smashed the APVMA's ability to fulfil its purpose. It has been left to the Albanese government to pick up the pieces and fix the mess left behind by a decade of Liberal and National incompetence and neglect, and that's a familiar refrain across so many portfolios.

In April, the Albanese government outlined our preliminary response to the rapid evaluation of the APVMA, detailing the reforms necessary to restore confidence in this essential regulator. A critical step was the appointment of Scott Hansen as new board chair and CEO in July, installing the experienced leadership needed to make the APVMA a world-class chemical regulator. We have removed the requirement for APVMA staff to be based at Armidale, allowing the organisation to recruit based on expertise rather than geography. This change improves operational efficiency and enhances the agency's ability to fulfil its regulatory responsibilities. And let's be clear. For the record, the APVMA's role is to regulate the sector across all of Australia, not to shore up a local jobs message for the member for New England in a city in his electorate. Throughout the reform process, the APVMA will continue to exercise its regulatory powers to address outstanding chemical reviews and will keep the minister informed with regular updates.

The member for Mallee had a bit of a sledge at the ABC. I reject that entirely. I don't agree with everything the ABC does, but I respect its right to act independently and make its own editorial judgements.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Shadow Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My late father, Lance, left school after his primary school years and went straight to the farm. I can remember, when I came along and Dad took me up to the paddock, we used to pour chemicals and liquids into water in the boom sprayer and then make sure we did everything we could to get the highest yield. He probably didn't take all the necessary measures, because they weren't in place at the time and he just didn't know what he didn't know. Of course, these days farming is a lot different. Farmers kit up properly when mixing chemicals. They do everything they can to place safety first. My father placed safety first too, but times were different. Times were way different.

We certainly didn't get the yields then that we are getting now. We are getting the yields now from grain because of the wonderful steps we've taken in technology and science, and we thank the universities and we thank our farmers for what they have done to increase production. And we should thank our farmers three times a day every day. Every time we tuck our knees under the table to eat, we should be applauding and lauding our farmers' work.

Our farmers are the best in the world. They're the best environmentalists in the world. What they don't need is more regulation. What they don't need is somebody coming down on top of them and telling them that they've got to dilute this and got to dilute that, because what will happen, if we go down the path that some are suggesting, is that we will make the weeds resistant to the various chemicals we spray on them—substances we use to gain higher yields—and we can't have that.

This is a very good motion, and it wouldn't be brought forward by no less than the shadow assistant minister for regional health if it weren't a good cause. Paraquat and diquat have been used safely for more than three decades. They're presently used to knock down weeds which have been weakened first with an application of Roundup herbicide.

I appreciate the ABC has gone out on a limb on this. Sometimes we see our national broadcaster do this sort of thing in this sort of way and then use Country Hour and Landline to push it and promote it. But even the member for Lyons just said that, as it stands, based on current evidence, there is no link—no link whatsoever—between paraquat and Parkinson's disease, but there is an obligation to listen to the science if such evidence presents itself. There is. The member for Mallee understands that. She grasps it. She has a history of making sure that the people she represents come first, and this is why she has brought this important motion to the parliament.

It is important that farmers adhere to the safety precautions when using any herbicides. My father did in his own way. I know the member for Parkes, a farmer of many decades experience, also does. When used within these guidelines, any risks associated are reduced.

The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry must listen to all farmers on this issue, not just those from perhaps a show or a radio program broadcast by the ABC. We saw what happened last time Labor did this, with live cattle. In a knee-jerk response to a program in June 2011—I remember it well—we just cut the cattle trade. We didn't tell Indonesia at the time; they found out later. But we cut the cattle trade. It was the worst decision in agriculture—the worst decision up until they decided to stop live sheep exports.

This is an attack on farmers. Make no mistake; it always is. It's an attack on those people who produce the finest food and the best fibre in all of the world. These decisions need to be made holistically, taking in the evidence from farmers and, most importantly, the science, and weighing up the risks and benefits to primary producers and how it would affect the production of the top-quality food and fibre I mentioned for which, as I also mentioned, Australia is renowned. The APVMA—the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority—is reviewing the approved usage levels of paraquat and diquat in Australia, and that is imminently and perfectly sensible. Let's leave it to the experts. Let's not leave it to the ABC, let's not leave it to Labor trying to score political points. Let's leave it to the experts. Let's make sure we put every provision in place for our farmers to increase their yields, to do what they've always done in the best possible way and to not rush to stupid, knee-jerk, meaningless responses, the only benefit of which and the only winners of which will be our weeds.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's encouraging to see the member for Mallee's wholehearted support for the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, and to see the member for Riverina also giving support for it. I commend their stance, but it is a little bit surprising given the record of the coalition when it comes to this independent arm's-length regulator.

The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, was established in 1993 to centralise the registration of all agricultural and veterinary chemical products in the Australian marketplace. The chemical registration process rests on a rigorous scientific evaluation of the safety and efficacy of a chemical to protect the health and safety of people, animals, the environment and trading relationships—scientists serving the nation, scientists saving lives, scientists doing science. Billy Hughes was still a Labor PM when he set up the precursor to the CSIRO way back in 1916. He did go on to serve five other parties, but, I note, never the National Party. The Labor Party has always had that strong connection with the bush and with science. We believe that it's vital to value and uphold the role of all independent agencies, especially scientific ones.

You don't want politicians making scientific decisions. This means letting them get on with their job of interpreting the science without undue influence and then listening to their expert findings. The APVMA is no different, and the Albanese government is taking steps to bolster confidence in it after years of some, frankly, quite bizarre interference under the coalition government. First, there was the ill-thought-out and ill-planned move of the APVMA to Armadale in the electorate of New England. This measure was designed and implemented by the member for New England for his own bizarre personal reasons. First, he ordered a cost-benefit analysis of the move. Then he decided to ignore that process. He did not wait for the report or consult industry, and then he moved the APVMA anyway. In fact, there was intense industry opposition to this move, led by the National Farmers Federation and CropLife. Surprise, surprise—the National Party member ignoring the farmers! Maybe because he was an accountant, I don't know. When the cost benefit analysis was finally released—

Honourable Member:

An honourable member interjecting—

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, we give him to New South Wales. He had a brief interaction with St George—I thank the member for that interjection. When the cost-benefit analysis was finally released it warned that the move could delay investigation and approval processes, adversely affecting the industry. It also cautioned against the loss of regulatory scientists—the experts responsible for the critical work—foreshadowing how this would affect the ability of the agency to meet its KPIs. By May 2023 the staffing crisis within the agency was actually raised in estimates.

It's not like the former government did not know there were problems. The former agriculture minister commissioned a report into the regulatory system in September 2019 and then sat on the report for a year without taking any action. It has taken a Labor government to step in and resolve these issues. Labor is helping the bush because we govern without fear or favour. We appointed a new board chair and CEO to provide the leadership required to revitalise and reform the APVMA so it could continue to serve farmers like the honourable member opposite. We also removed the requirement that staff be Armadale-based: therefore, attracting high-quality candidates from further afield and not just because their postcode happened to be 2530, smack bang in the middle of the New England electorate.

The 2023 Clayton Utz review of the APVMA noted that some reviews for chemicals were subject to decades of delay. In response, the minister for agriculture issued a ministerial direction to resolve outstanding reviews, and significant progress has been made. Letting the APVMA get on with its job is precisely what this Labor government is doing when it comes to the herbicides paraquat and diquat. These chemicals are used to manage weeds in grain and other horticultural farming and have been under review by the APVMA. As a result, the APVMA proposes to apply some limitations to their use, including at high rates of applications that pose an unacceptable level of risk to the environment—and the people around that environment, obviously—and when the poisoning risk is not adequately mitigated. The proposed regulatory decision was released on 30 July this year and still allows usage at lower rates and early in the season. Public consultation ended on 29 October. This proposal has received support from the interim CEO of Grain Producers Australia, who agrees with the measures to tighten rules against their safe handling.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I, too, stand here to support the member for Mallee and her motion in this House. I acknowledge that the members opposite, in the Labor Party, are in fierce agreement, but they can't resist the temptation to throw a political spin onto what's a very common sense motion.

I speak with practical experience in the use of paraquat. In my previous role as a grain farmer, we would use that in what's known as a double knock. The glyphosate would take out a lot of the weeds. The harder to kill ones would need another application, this time of paraquat, to finish them up.

People would go, 'Oh, you're using chemicals.' The reason that at the moment, as we speak, right across western New South Wales we have the biggest wheat crops on record ever harvested is the technique of growing wheat in western New South Wales, and that's using no till, zero till. We're not ploughing or cultivating; we're just preserving the trash from the previous crop on top of the ground. It reflects the light and the heat, and it conserves the moisture. We hear a lot of talk in this place about carbon farming and funky phrases about what's all the go. The farmers in my electorate have been doing this for decades. They pioneered this process.

The ABC didn't just play this once. I must be in the car—I think it was last week—driving around my electorate, and I heard the first report on this, with the same gentleman quoted, between six and 6.30 in the morning. Then, it was on between 12 and 1, and it was on the afternoon show, at about four in the afternoon. So three times in the one day they read this. I've got great sympathy for the gentleman they reviewed, who has Parkinson's and who believes the use of this chemical might have led to it. But he also said he was soaked in this chemical. Look, if you soaked yourself every day in petrol, you probably wouldn't be all that healthy, but we're not banning petrol. If mechanics tipped battery acid over their heads while installing batteries into cars, it probably would do them much good either, but we're not banning battery. This is the same. When I used paraquat, I wore rubber gloves and a long-sleeved shirt. It was towed by a tractor with a carbon filtered cab—everything as per the recommendation. If you follow those recommendations, it is a safe chemical to use. It's an essential one. We need to make sure we don't have these knee-jerk reactions from people on the fringes of things that tend to want to do things to make others change what they're doing.

There has been a lot of defence for the APVMA and a lot of discussion about their history. I can say the APVMA can lift their act. This is not the only issue that has been bubbling along for some time. For the last 12 months or so, I've been talking with some farmers and suppliers in my electorate about a seed treatment called Victrato. The significant trials of Victrato that have been done by Syngenta with the local firm McGregor Gourlay over five years have shown considerable improvement in yield potential by controlling crown rot. Crown rot is a very, very insidious issue with wheat, which remains largely unknown until the crops mature, and then the yield just falls away. They have been waiting for an outcome from the APVMA, hoping that this year they could use Victrato, but that's not happening. They thought next year, in the 2025 season, but it looks like that has been pushed out because the APVMA are concerned about the lack of efficacy, not about potential environmental impacts. My point is: why not let the market decide whether this chemical works or not? If it won't have any ill effects and it's only about the efficacy, that's an issue that should be dealt with. The APVMA does have an issue of dragging its feet in places where it's not necessary. I'm not saying we take shortcuts. I'm not saying that chemicals shouldn't be properly scrutinised. But there is no need to drag things out unnecessarily when it's affecting the viability and potential profitability of farmers in Australia.

Matt Burnell (Spence, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Terry Young (Longman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.