Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

On behalf of the opposition, I welcome the fact that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator Ludwig, has made this ministerial statement, but I am a little perplexed about the process through which he is conducting this review. The two chemicals under review, dimethoate and fenthion, are significant chemicals in horticultural use in Australia, particularly in controlling fruit fly, which is a significant pest once thought to be a problem in Queensland but which has since moved into some other states. I understand that these chemicals are the only chemicals currently available for the control of Queensland fruit fly.

Some predictions by industry suggest that there could be losses of up to $300 million in the first year alone to Queensland horticulture as a result of banning these chemicals, with further impacts on the wine grape industries in Western Australia and South Australia. The impact of a potential ban of these chemicals is quite significant. I acknowledge that the opposition requested a private briefing from the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority on this matter on Monday and I appreciate that it has become a briefing for all members and senators rather than just the briefing that was sought by members of the opposition in relation to the potential impacts.

We need to ensure that the pesticides that are utilised in agriculture and horticulture in this country are safe to use and managed properly. That is a significant consideration and the opposition is quite cognisant of that. I note that, in the ministerial statement, the minister indicates that the legislation does not allow delaying decisions on the potential adverse economic effects, particularly where health concerns are identified. I urge the minister to ensure that everything occurs that needs to occur and could occur so that we can work closely with industry on this process.

I note that the ministerial statement refers to a national response plan that is being developed jointly by governments to focus on this issue, but I also note that the banning of the chemicals has significant capacity to inhibit trade between states. We are not just talking about import-export but also talking about trade between states. Largely, that is where some of the impacts of the removal of these chemicals would apply.

I do not want to sound alarmist in my response to the ministerial statement. I appreciate that the minister is prepared to put significant information on the table, and I appreciate that he has asked the APVMA to provide a briefing to senators and members next week, but it is important that all of the measures that can be put in place are put in place in response to the circumstances that might arise from the review of these two chemicals. It appears to me from the ministerial statement that the agricultural and horticultural sector may lose access to these two chemicals, based on quite sound grounds quite probably. But it is important that, as there is no alternative to these chemicals at this point in time, everything that can be done is done to ensure that the biosecurity issues are managed between states and also that the biosecurity arrangements applying to these chemicals for import and export requirements are managed in a satisfactory manner.

Question agreed to.